Labor

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE MATRIX I
EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

Elements of Relationship
TITLE
Abella v. PLDT
FACTS
- Abella, et. al. were security guards in
PLDT. The security services were
contracted out by PLDT from PSI (the
security agency).
- In the agreement between PLDT and
PSI, it was clearly stated that there
will be no EER between PLDT and the
security guards.
- 65 guards provided by PSI filed a
complaint for regularization against
PLDT with the LA. They alleged that
they have been directly serving PLDT
for more than 1 year.
- After they unionized, they staged a
picket in front of PLDTs Makati
office. This prompted PLDT to order
PSI to terminate 25 guards.
- LA dismissed the complaint for lack of
merit. NLRC and CA affirmed.
ISSUE/S
- WON there exists
EER between PLDT
& the security
guards that would
serve as basis for
the complaint for
regularization to
prosper.
Caurdanetaan
Piece Workers
Union v.
Laguesma
- This case consists of 2 consolidated

cases.
- The first case is an appeal from the
decision of Laguesma, as
Undersecretary of Labor, in the
Petition for Certification Election filed
by petitioner-union.
- The Caurdenataan Piece Workers
Union is composed of the
employees of Corfarm Grains, Inc.
They work as cargadores in the said
company and were paid on a piece
rate basis.
- W/n there was an

employer-employee
relationship
between the
cargadores and
Corfarm.
HELD
- NO. The guards are employees of PSI
and not of PLDT. PSI, the independent
contractor, is the employer of the
security guards.
- Applying the 4 tests:
- a. The selection of the guards was
done by PSI. It was PSI who assigned
the posts of the guards.
- b. PSI determined the guards
compensation, wages, and salaries. It
was shown that the guards collected
their wages from PSIs office, and
that PLDT paid PSI for security
services on a lump-sum basis.
- c & d. The claim of the guards that
the delinquency reports of PLDT
showed that PLDT had the power to
control & dismiss them cannot stand.
These reports merely served as
recommendations for a guard to be
terminated from PLDT. But he does
not lose his employment from PSI.
- YES. To determine the existence of an
employer-employee relation, this
Court has consistently applied the
four-fold test.
- It is undeniable that petitioners
members worked as cargadores for
private respondent. They loaded,
unloaded and piled sacks of palay
from the warehouses to the cargo
trucks and from the cargo trucks to
the buyers. This work is directly
related, necessary and vital to the
operations of Corfarm. Moreover,
cj tan, jay beron, julie domino, mars rongo, mike lopez, ryan quan / 4C 07-08 / atty. marlon j. manuel
DOCTRINE
- Factors to determine EER:
a. Selection & engagement of
employee
b. Payment of wages
c. Power to dismiss
d. Power to control
employees conduct
- To determine the existence of

an employer-employee
relation, this Court has
consistently applied the fourfold test which has the
following elements: (1) the
power to hire, (2) the payment
of wages, (3) the power to
dismiss, and (4) the power to
control -- the last being the
most important element.
- The said union was organized when

some of their benefits were not given
to them. Thus, they filed their
petition for certification election. The
Med-Arbiter granted the petition but
this decision was reversed, on appeal,
by Laguesma saying that there was
no employer-employee relationship
existing.
- The second case involves a complaint
for illegal dismissal against Corfarm.
This arose because those workers
who joined the said union were
replaced with non-members.
- As to this case, the labor arbiter first
ruled in favor of the workers but
subsequently, the NLRC reversed
such ruling.
Villamaria v.
CA
- Villamaria was the owner of

Villamaria Motors.
- In 1995, he stopped assembling
jeepneys and retained only nine, four
of which he operated by employing
drivers on a boundary basis.
- One of those drivers was respondent
Bustamante. Bustamante remitted
P450 a day to Villamaria as boundary
and kept the residue of his daily
earnings as compensation for driving
- Whether or not an
employer employee
relationship existed
between Villamaria
and Bustamante, so
as to hold the
former liable for
illegal dismissal.
Corfarm did not even allege, much

less prove, that petitioners members
have substantial capital or
investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, [and] work
premises, among others.
Furthermore, said respondent did not
contradict petitioners allegation that
it paid wages directly to these
workers without the intervention of
any third-party independent
contractor. It also wielded the power
of dismissal over petitioners; in fact,
its exercise of this power was the
progenitor of the Second Case.
Clearly, the workers are not
independent contractors.
It does not matter that the workers
also work for other companies
because this is just their way of
coping with their daily expenses.
No particular form of proof is
required to prove the existence of an
employer-employee relationship. Any
competent and relevant evidence may
show the relationship. If only
documentary evidence would be
required to demonstrate that
relationship, no scheming employer
would ever be brought before the bar
of justice.
YES.
Under the boundary-hulog scheme
incorporated in the Kasunduan, a
dual juridical relationship was
created between petitioner and
respondent: that of employeremployee and vendor-vendee. The
Kasunduan did not extinguish the
employer-employee relationship of
the parties extant before the
execution of said deed.
- The jeepney owner/operatordriver relationship under the

boundary system is that of
employer-employee and not
lessor-lessee. This was
analogously applied to govern
the relationships between
auto-calesa owner/operator
and driver, bus owner/operator
and conductor, and taxi
owner/operator and driver.
2
the vehicle.
- In 1997, Villamaria verbally agreed to
sell the jeepney to Bustamante. It
was also agreed that Bustamante
would make a downpayment of
P10,000.00. The parties agreed that if
Bustamante failed to pay the
boundary-hulog for three days,
Villamaria Motors would hold on to
the vehicle until Bustamante paid his
arrears.
- Bustamante continued driving the
jeepney under the supervision and
control of Villamaria. Later,
Bustamante failed to pay for the
annual registration fees of the
vehicle, but Villamaria allowed him to
continue driving the jeepney.
- In 2000, Villamaria took back the
jeepney driven by Bustamante and
barred the latter from driving the
vehicle.
- Bustamante filed a Complaint for
Illegal Dismissal against Villamaria
and his wife Teresita.
AFP Mutual
Benefit
Association v.
NLRC
- Eutiquio Bustamante had been an

insurance underwriter of AFP Mutual
Benefit Association, Inc. since 1975.
The Sales Agent's Agreement
between them provided:
- Bustamante shall solicit exclusively
for AFP and shall be bound by the
latter's policies, memo circulars, rules
and regulations which it may from
time to time, revise, modify or cancel
- Is there an
employee-employer
relationship?
- Under the boundary system, the

owner/operator exercises control and
supervision over the driver. It is
unlike in lease of chattels where the
lessor loses complete control over the
chattel leased but the lessee is still
ultimately responsible for the
consequences of its use.
- The management of the business is
still in the hands of the
owner/operator, who, being the
holder of the certificate of public
convenience, must see to it that the
driver follows the route prescribed by
the franchising and regulatory
authority, and the rules promulgated
with regard to the business
operations.
- The fact that the driver does not
receive fixed wages but only the
excess of the boundary given to the
owner/operator is not sufficient to
change the relationship between
them. Indubitably, the driver
performs activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the
owner/operator.
- Under the Kasunduan, Villamaria
retained supervision and control over
the conduct of the respondent as
driver of the jeepney.
- NO. The Court has applied the "fourfold" test in determining the
existence of employer-employee
relationship. This test considers the
following elements: (1) the power to
hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3)
the power to dismiss; and (4) the
power to control, the last being the
most important element.
- The fact that Bustamante was
- The boundary system is a

scheme by an owner/operator
engaged in transporting
passengers as a common
carrier to primarily govern the
compensation of the driver,
that is, the latters daily
earnings are remitted to the
owner/operator less the excess
of the boundary which
represents the drivers
compensation.
- The existence of an
employment relation is not
dependent on how the worker
is paid but on the presence or
absence of control over the
means and method of the work
- The significant factor in

determining the relationship of
the parties is the presence or
absence of supervisory
authority to control the
method and the details of
performance of the service
being rendered, and the
degree to which the principal
may intervene to exercise such
3
to serve its business interests.

- AFP dismissed Bustamante for
misrepresentation and for
simultaneously selling insurance for
another life insurance company in
violation of said agreement.
- A disagreement ensued as to the
entitlement of Bustamante over his
salaries.
- This prompted Bustamante to file a
complaint with the Office of the
Insurance Commissioner who advised
Bustamante that it was the DOLE that
had jurisdiction over his complaint.
- Bustamante filed his complaint with
the Department of Labor.
- The jurisdiction of the DOLE was
questioned on the ground of lack of
EER between Bustamante and AFP.
-
Sonza v. ABSCBN
Broadcasting
Corp.
- In May 1994, the Mel & Jay

Management and Development
Corporation (MJMDC) entered into an
agreement with ABS CBN whereby
the former agreed to provide Jose
- Whether or not ABS

CBN and Sonza had
a employeremployee
relationship.
required to solicit business

exclusively for AFP could hardly be
considered as control in labor
jurisprudence. Under 2 Memo
Circulars issued by the Insurance
Commissioner, insurance agents are
barred from serving more than one
insurance company, in order to
protect the public and to enable
insurance companies to exercise
exclusive supervision over their
agents in their solicitation work.
Thus, the exclusivity restriction
clearly springs from a regulation
issued by the Insurance Commission,
and not from an intention by AFP to
establish control over the method and
manner by which private respondent
shall accomplish his work.
The fact that Bustamante was bound
by company policies, memo/circulars,
rules and regulations issued from
time to time is also not indicative of
control. The policies, memo/circulars,
and rules and regulations referred to
are required in accordance with the
rules promulgated by the Insurance
Commission. So, in the same manner,
there was no intention to control
rather, there was only an intention to
comply with the rules issued by the
Insurance Commission. According to
the AFP, insurance solicitors are
never affected or covered by the rules
and regulations concerning employee
conduct and penalties for violations
thereof.
NO.
All the elements to show EER are
present here.
Selection and Engagement of
Employee: The specific selection and
control.
- The presence of such power of
control is indicative of an
employment relationship,
while absence thereof is
indicative of independent
contractorship. In other words,
the test to determine the
existence of independent
contractorship is whether one
claiming to be an independent
contractor has contracted to
do the work according to his
own methods and without
being subject to the control of
the employer except only as to
the result of the work. Such is
exactly the nature of the
relationship between AFP and
Bustamante.
- Case law has consistently held

that the elements of an
employer-employee
relationship are: (a) the
selection and engagement of
4
Sonzas (SONZA) services exclusively

to the latter as television and radio
talent.
ABS-CBN agreed to pay for SONZAs
services a monthly talent fee of
P310,000 for the first year and
P317,000 for the second and third
year of the Agreement.
In 1996, Sonza resigned and
complained before the DOLE-NCR
that ABS-CBN did not pay his
salaries, separation pay, service
incentive leave pay, 13th month pay,
signing bonus, travel allowance and
amounts due under the Employees
Stock Option Plan.
The labor arbiter ruled out an
employer-employee relationship as it
was decided that ABS CBN
contracted Sonzas services by reason
of his peculiar skills and talents and
that he was free to perform the
services he undertook to render in
accordance with his own style.
Further, whatever benefits SONZA
enjoyed arose from specific
agreement by the parties and not by
reason of employer-employee
relationship.
The CA upheld the decision rendered
by the labor arbiter and the NLRC.
hiring of SONZA, because of his

unique skills, talent and celebrity
status not possessed by ordinary
employees, is a circumstance
indicative, but not conclusive, of an
independent contractual relationship.
Payment of Wages: All the talent fees
and benefits paid to SONZA were the
result of negotiations that led to the
Agreement.
If SONZA were ABS-CBNs employee,
there would be no need for the
parties to stipulate on benefits such
as SSS, Medicare, x x x and 13th
month pay which the law
automatically incorporates into every
employer-employee contract.
Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed
arose from contract and not because
of an employer-employee
relationship.
SONZAs talent fees are so huge and
out of the ordinary that they indicate
more an independent contractual
relationship rather than an employeremployee relationship.
Power of Dismissal: SONZA failed to
show that ABS-CBN could terminate
his services on grounds other than
breach of contract, such as
retrenchment to prevent losses as
provided under labor laws.
Even if it suffered severe business
losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench
SONZA because ABS-CBN remained
obligated to pay SONZAs talent fees
during the life of the Agreement.
This circumstance indicates an
independent contractual relationship
between SONZA and ABS-CBN.
Power of Control: ABS-CBN was not
involved in the actual performance
the employee; (b) the payment

of wages; (c) the power of
dismissal; and (d) the
employers power to control
the employee on the means
and methods by which the
work is accomplished. The last
element, the so-called
control test, is the most
important element.
- In labor-only contracting,
there are three parties
involved: (1) the labor-only
contractor; (2) the employee
who is ostensibly under the
employ of the labor-only
contractor; and (3) the
principal who is deemed the
real employer.
- Whether or not
MJMDC was a
labor-only
contractor.
that produced the finished product of

SONZAs work.
ABS-CBNs control was limited only
to the result of SONZAs work,
whether to broadcast the final
product or not. In any event, ABSCBN must still pay SONZAs talent
fees in full until the expiry of the
Agreement.
A radio broadcast specialist who
works under minimal supervision is
an independent contractor.
SONZAs work as television and radio
program host required special skills
and talent, which SONZA admittedly
possesses. The records do not show
that ABS-CBN exercised any
supervision and control over how
SONZA utilized his skills and talent in
his shows.
The Agreement between SONZA and
ABS CBN stipulates that SONZA shall
abide with the rules and standards of
performance covering talents of
ABS-CBN but these were merely
guidelines for the achievement of a
mutually-desired result of top ratings.
NO.
In a labor-only contract, there are
three parties involved: (1) the laboronly contractor; (2) the employee
who is ostensibly under the employ of
the labor-only contractor; and (3)
the principal who is deemed the real
employer.
There are essentially only two parties
involved under the Agreement,
namely, SONZA and ABS-CBN.
MJMDC merely acted as SONZAs
agent. The Agreement expressly
states that MJMDC acted as the
AGENT of SONZA.
ABS-CBN
Broadcasting
Corp. v.
Nazareno
- ABS-CBN employed respondents as

production assistants (PAs) on
different dates, assigned at the new
and public affairs section.
- A memo was issued, informing the
PAs that they were being reassigned
to a different department and would
be subject to a schedule change.
- Respondents filed a complaint with
the NLRC for Recognition of Regular
Employment Status, and for payment
of other benefits.
- It was the position of the employees
that they had been engaged by the
petitioner as regular employees for a
continuous period of more than five
years.
- On the other hand, the petitioner
argued that the production assistants
were not regular employees but were
program employees whose
engagement was coterminous with
the completion of the program.
- The LA rendered judgment in favor of
the respondents, and declared that
they were regular employees of
petitioner; as such, they were
awarded monetary benefits. NLRC
modified the judgment and increased
the monetary awards given to
respondents. CA denied petition for
review.
- WON the PAs are

employees of ABSCBN. (Petitioner
relies on Sonza v.
ABS-CBN in
claiming that the
PAs were not
employees of the
network.)
Phil. Global
Communicatio
ns v. De Vera
- Ricardo De Vera is a physician by

profession who was enlisted by
Philippine Global Communications
(PhilCom) to attend to the medical
needs of its employees.
- W/n there was an

employer-employee
relationship
between PhilCom
and De Vera.
- YES. Petitioners reliance in ABSCBN v. Sonza is misplaced. It must be

noted that Sonza was considered an
independent contractor because of
his unique skills, talent and celebrity
status not possessed by other
employees, and his talent fees had to
include the benefits which were
accorded to all employees. (If he were
an employee, it would not be
necessary to stipulate on benefits like
13th month pay, SSS, Medicare, etc.)
- In this case, EER has been proven.
- a. In the selection and engagement,
no peculiar or unique skill, talent or
celebrity status was required from
them because they were merely hired
through petitioners personnel
department just like any ordinary
employee.
- b. The so-called talent fees of the
PAs were wages given as a result of
an EER. The PAs did not have the
power to bargain for huge talent fees,
a circumstance negating independent
contractual relationship.
- c. Petitioner could always discharge
respondents should it find their work
unsatisfactory, and respondents are
highly dependent on the petitioner for
continued work.
- d. The degree of control and
supervision exercised by petitioner
over respondents through its
supervisors negates the allegation
that respondents are independent
contractors.
- NO. Applying the 4-fold test, the SC
found that De Vera cannot be
considered an employee of PhilCom.
- One reason was because it was De
Vera, himself, who dictated to
- Factors to determine EER:

a. Selection & engagement of
employee
b. Payment of wages
c. Power to dismiss
d. Power to control
employees conduct
- Aside from the four-fold test,

there are several indicia of the
presence of employeremployee relationship:
- Not being included in the
7
- He was hired by PhilCom on a

retainer basis. There was a contract
between the 2 parties but was only
for 1 year, to be extended upon
agreement. De Veras contract was
extended from 1981 to 1994. In 1995
and 1996, he was retained but only
through oral agreement.
- At the end of 1996, De Veras
retainership was ended.
- He then filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with the labor arbiter.
- The labor arbiter dismissed the
complaint but the decision was
reversed by the NLRC, saying that De
Vera can be considered a regular
employee of PhilCom. Thus this
appeal by PhilCom.
PhilCom what services he was going

to render for the company. This was
evident in the letter De Vera sent to
the company when he was still
proposing his services.
Also, in another letter to the company,
De Vera was dictating to the company
the time when he would be coming to
work.
The above two facts point to the fact
that the company did not have full
control over De Veras work.
It should also be noted that from the
time he started to work with
petitioner, he never was included in
its payroll; was never deducted any
contribution for remittance to the
SSS; and was in fact subjected by
petitioner to the 10% withholding tax
for his professional fee, in accordance
with the NIRC, matters which are
simply inconsistent with an EER.
Also, the records are replete with
evidence showing that respondent
had to bill petitioner for his monthly
professional fees. It simply runs
against the grain of common
experience to imagine that an
ordinary employee has yet to bill his
employer to receive his salary.
Note also that the power to terminate
the parties relationship was mutually
vested on both. Either may terminate
the arrangement at will, with or
without cause.
It does not also matter that the
services that De Vera renders for the
company be considered as necessary
and desirable because such
qualifications are determinative of
whether the employee is regular or
casual. The Court held that even if
payroll
No deduction in salary as
contribution for
remittance to the SSS
Being subjected to
withholding tax for
his/her professional fee
Chavez v.
NLRC
- Supreme Packaging is in the business

of manufacturing cartons and other
packaging materials.
- It engaged the services of Pedro
Chavez as truck driver. The company
furnished the petitioner with a truck.
The deliveries were made in
accordance with the routing slips
issued by the company indicating the
order, time and urgency of delivery.
- Chavez expressed to the companys
plant manager his desire to avail
himself of the benefits that the
regular employees were receiving
such as overtime pay, nightshift
differential pay, and 13th month pay,
among others.
- Chavez later filed a complaint for
regularization with NLRC. Before the
case could be heard, the company
terminated his services. He then filed
an amended complaint against for
illegal dismissal, ULP and nonpayment of benefits.
- The company denied the existence of
an EER. It averred that Chavez was
an independent contractor as
evidenced by the contract of service.
It also insisted that Chavez had the
sole control over the means and
methods by which his work was
accomplished. He paid the wages of
his helpers and exercised control over
them. As such, he was not entitled to
regularization because he was not an
employee of the company.
- Whether there
existed an
employer-employee
relationship
between the
company and
Chavez.
the services rendered are necessary

and desirable, this does not
presuppose that there was an EER
between the parties. This is precisely
why there are independent
contractors.
YES. All 4 elements to determine EER
are present in this case.
It was the company who engaged the
services of Chavez without the
intervention of a third party.
The company paid wages to him. The
fact that Chavez was paid on a per
trip basis is not significant. This is
merely a method of computing
compensation and not a basis for
determining the existence or absence
of EER.
The companys power to dismiss
Chavez was inherent in the fact that
they engaged his services as truck
driver. It exercised this power by
terminating Chavez services albeit in
the guise of severance of contractual
relation due allegedly to the latters
breach of his contractual obligation.
Their right of control was manifested
by the following attendant
circumstances:
1. The truck driven by Chavez
belonged to the company
2. There was an express
instruction from the company
that the truck shall be used
exclusively to deliver the
companys goods;
3. The company directed Chavez,
after completion of each
delivery, to park the truck in
either of two specific places
only
4. The company determined how,
- 4 Elements of EER (same as

above)
- Compared to an employee, an
independent contractor is one
who carries on a distinct and
independent business and
undertakes to perform the job,
work, or service on its own
account and under its own
responsibility according to its
own manner and method, free
from the control and direction
of the principal in all matters
connected with the
performance of the work
except as to the results
thereof. Hence, while an
independent contractor enjoys
independence and freedom
from the control and
supervision of his principal, an
employee is subject to the
employers power to control
the means and methods by
which the employees work is
to be performed and
accomplished.
Almirez v.
Infinite Loop
Technology
- Almirez was hired as a Refinery

Senior Process Design Engineer for a
specific project by Infinite Loop
Technology Corporation.
- During her employment, a
disagreement ensued between
Almirez and Infinite Loop regarding
the amount of salary due to Almirez.
In the end, the professional services
of Almirez was suspended.
- Almirez filed a complaint against
Infinite Loop before the NLRC for
"breach of contract of employment,"
praying that judgment be rendered in
her favor.
- Infinite Loop moved to dismiss8
Almirez complaint on the ground that
the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter, there
being no employee-employer
relationship between them as the
contract they entered into was one of
services and not of employment.
- Is there an
employee-employer
relationship
between Almirez
and Infinite Loop?
where and when Chavez

would perform his task by
issuing to him gate passes and
routing slips.
- To ascertain the existence of an
employer-employee relationship,
jurisprudence has invariably applied
the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the
manner of selection and engagement;
(2) the payment of wages; (3) the
presence or absence of the power of
dismissal; and (4) the presence or
absence of the power of control. Of
these four, the last one, the so called
"control test" is commonly regarded
as the most crucial and determinative
indicator of the presence or absence
of an employer-employee
relationship.
- It is true that Almirez was required to
make reports and recommendations
to the company management team
regarding work progress, revisions
and improvement of process design
on a regular basis as required by
company management team but this
does not show that the companys
management team exercises control
over the means and methods in the
performance of her duties as Refinery
Process Design Engineer. The
company naturally expected to be
updated regularly of her "work
progress," if any, on the project for
which Almirez was specifically hired.
- Under the control test, an

employer-employee
relationship exists where the
person for whom the services
are performed reserves the
right to control not only the
end achieved, but also the
manner and means to be used
in reaching that end.
Independent Contractors & Labor-Only Contractors

TITLE
Vinoya v.
NLRC
FACTS
- Alexander Vinoya alleges that he
applied to and was accepted by
Regent Food Corporation (RFC) as
ISSUE/S
- Whether or not
PMCI was a laboronly contractor.
HELD
- YES.
- From Neri v. NLRC Philippine and
Fuji Xerox Corporation vs. NLRC, it
DOCTRINE
- Labor-only contracting, a
prohibited act, is an
arrangement where the
10
sales representative.
- He was immediately issued a
company I.D., was made to report on
a daily basis, sent to supermarkets
and grocery stores to book sales
orders and collect payments for RFC,
and was made to issue a monthly
bond of P200.00 as security deposit to
guarantee the performance of his
obligation as sales representative.
- He alleges that he was under the
direct control and supervision of the
RFC plant manager and senior
salesman.
- A little over a year later, he was
transferred by RFC to the Peninsula
Manpower Corporation, Inc. (PMCI),
an agency which provides RFC with
additional contractual workers
pursuant to a contract for the supply
of manpower services.
- He was thereafter reassigned to RFC
as sales representative, a few months
following which his services were
terminated, allegedly following the
expiration of contract between RFC
and PMCI.
- He thus filed charges for illegal
dismissal and non-payment of 13th
month pay against RFC before the
NLRC.
- On the other hand, while RFC admits
that it had control and supervision
over Vinoya, it argues, among others,
that such was exercised in
coordination with PMCI.
may be inferred that it is not enough

to show substantial capitalization or
equipment, machineries and work
premises, among others, to be
considered as an independent
contractor.
In fact, jurisprudential holdings are to
the effect that in determining the
existence of an independent
contractor relationship, several
factors might be considered such as,
but not necessarily confined to,
whether 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 specified pieces of
work; the control and supervision of
the workers; the power of the
employer with respect to the hiring,
firing and payment of the workers of
the contractor; the control of the
premises; the duty to supply
premises, tools, appliances, materials
and labor; and the mode, manner and
terms of payment.
In the case at bar, PMCI does not
have substantial capitalization or
equipment, machineries, work
premises, among others, to qualify as
an independent contractor.
While it has an authorized capital
stock of P1,000,000.00, only
P75,000.00 is actually paid-in, which,
to the Courts mind, cannot be
considered as substantial
capitalization.
PMCI did not carry on an
independent business nor did it
contractor or subcontractor
merely recruits, supplies or
places workers to perform a
job, work or service for a
principal.
- The elements of labor-only
contracting are: (a) The
does not have substantial
capital or investment to
actually perform the job, work
or service under its own
account and responsibility;
and (b) The employees
recruited, supplied or placed
by such contractor or
subcontractor are performing
activities which are directly
related to the main business of
the principal.
- Permissible job contracting or
subcontracting refers to an
arrangement whereby a
principal agrees to put out or
farm out with a contractor or
subcontractor the performance
or completion of a specific job,
work or service within a
definite or predetermined
period, regardless of whether
such job, work or service is to
be performed or completed
within or outside the premises
of the principal.
- Its elements are: (a) The
carries on a distinct and
independent business and
undertakes to perform the job,
work or service on its own
account and under its own
responsibility according to its
11
- Whether or not
there was an EER.
-
undertake the performance of its

contract according to its own manner
and method, free from the control
and supervision of its principal, RFC.
The evidence at hand shows that the
workers assigned by PMCI to RFC
were under the control and
supervision of the latter, as RFC had
earlier admitted, and as evidenced by
RFCs control over the work hours.
PMCI was not engaged to perform a
specific and special job or service,
which is one of the strong indicators
that an entity is an independent
contractor.
Since the undertaking of PMCI did
not involve the performance of a
specific job, but rather the supply of
manpower only, PMCI clearly
conducted itself as labor-only
contractor.
Lastly, in labor-only contracting, the
employees recruited, supplied or
placed by the contractor perform
activities which are directly related to
the main business of its principal. In
this case, the work of petitioner as
sales representative is directly
related to the business of RFC.
The position of sales representative
was not one of those subject of the
contract between RFC and PMCI
which only means that Vinoya was
never really intended to be one of
those whose services would be
contracted out.
Using the four-fold test would
result in the same finding that Vinoya
was in fact an employee of RFC.
To the Supreme Courts mind, the ID
card is enough proof that petitioner
was previously hired by RFC prior to
own manner and method, and

free from the control and
direction of the principal in all
matters connected with the
thereof; (b) The contractor or
subcontractor has substantial
capital or investment; and (c)
The agreement between the
principal and contractor or
subcontractor assures the
contractual employees
entitlement to all labor and
occupational safety and health
standards, free exercise of the
right to self-organization,
security of tenure, and social
and welfare benefits.
- In determining the existence of
employer-employee
relationship the following
elements of the "four-fold test"
are generally considered,
namely: (1) the selection and
engagement of the employee
or the power to hire; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the
power to dismiss; and (4) the
power to control the employee.
12
Lapanday v.
NLRC
- Lapanday Agricultural and

Commando Security entered into a
Guard Service Contract (GSC)
wherein the latter was to provide
security guards in the formers
banana plantation.
- 2 Wage Orders increasing minimum
wage were issued. As such,
Commando demanded that its GSC be
upgraded in compliance with the
Wage Orders. Lapanday refused.
- It was the position of Lapanday that
the rate adjustment mandated by the
- WON the RTC had

jurisdiction to hear
the case.
- Who is liable to pay

the wage increases
pursuant to the
Wage Orders?
his transfer as agency worker to

PMCI.
Even though the wages were coursed
through PMCI, the Supreme Court
noted that the funds actually came
from the pockets of RFC. Thus, in the
end, RFC is still the one who paid the
wages of petitioner albeit indirectly.
The Contract of Service gave RFC the
right to terminate the workers
assigned to it by PMCI without the
latter's approval which was what
happened in the instant case.
The labor arbiters finding and the
admission of RFC that it exercised
control and supervision over
petitioner, the same being a
declaration against interest, is
sufficient to prove that the power of
control truly exists.
Having been dismissed without valid
grounds and in violation of the right
to due process, Vinoya is entitled to
reinstatement to his former position
without loss of seniority rights and to
payment of full backwages
corresponding to the period from his
illegal dismissal up to actual
reinstatement
YES. It is well settled in law and
jurisprudence that where no EER
exists between the parties and no
issue is involved which may be
resolved by reference to the Labor
Code, other labor statutes or any
collective bargaining agreement, it is
the RTC that has jurisdiction.
Here, what is involved is claim based
on the alleged breach of the GSC.
Art. 107 provides that the principal
and the contractor are solidarily
liable to the employees for their
- Art. 107, Labor Code: Indirect

employer. The provisions of
the immediately preceding
Article shall likewise apply to
any person, partnership,
association or corporation
which, not being an employer,
contracts with an independent
contractor for the performance
of any work, task, job or
project.
- The soliday liability of the
contractor and the principal is
13
San Miguel
Corp. v. Aballa
Wage Orders was the obligation of

Commando as the employers of the
security guards.
RTC ruled in favor of Commando
stating that before the security
agency can pay the wage increase,
the principal must have paid the
agency first. MR was denied.
It is Lapandays position that the
increases were due to the guards and
not to the agency, and that the RTC
had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
San Miguel Corporation (SMC)
entered into a Contract of Services
with Sunflower Multi-Purpose
Cooperative (Sunflower) for the latter
to provide the manpower (janitorial,
messengerial, shrimp harvesting,
sanitation, washing and cold storage)
for the Bacolod Shrimp Processing
Plant of SMC.
Then, the private respondents in this
case filed a complaint with the Labor
Arbiter to be declared as regular
employees of the SMC. Subsequently,
the private respondents filed an
amended complaint to include illegal
dismissal in their cause of action
because of the closure of the Bacolod
Shrimp Processing Plant.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal.
However, the CA reversed the
decision of the NLRC ruling that
Sunflower is a labor-only contractor
and consequently, the private
respondents are the employees of
SMC.
wages.
- While the principal is the one liable
for the wage increases, the contractor
may pay the employees, subject to the
right to claim reimbursement from
the principal.
- In this case, Commando has not
actually paid the increases under the
Wage Orders. As such, it has no cause
of action against Lapanday to recover
the wage increases.
- W/n Sunflower is a
labor-only
contractor or an
independent
contractor.
- Sunflower is a labor-only contractor

- The test to determine the existence of
independent contractorship is
whether one claiming to be an
independent contractor has
contracted to do the work
according to his own methods and
without being subject to the
control of the employer, except
only as to the results of the work.
- The language of the contract that
there is no employer-employee
relationship between SMC and the
private respondents is not controlling
- It is to be noted that Sunflower does
not have substantial capitalization or
equipment, machineries, work
premises and other materials to
qualify it as an independent
contractor. It is gathered that the lot,
building, machineries and all other
working tools utilized by private
respondents in carrying out their
tasks were owned and provided by
SMC.
- And from the job description provided
by SMC itself, the work assigned to
private respondents was directly
related to the aquaculture operations
mandated by the Labor Code

to assure compliance with the
provisions therein including
the minimum wage.
The contractor is made liable
by virtue of his status as direct
employer. The principal is
made the indirect employer of
the contractors employees to
secure payment of their wages
should the contractor be
unable to pay them.
The test to determine the
existence of independent
contractorship is whether one
claiming to be an
independent contractor has
contracted to do the work
according to his own
methods and without being
subject to the control of the
employer, except only as to
the results of the work.
The language of the contract
that there is no EER is not
controlling.
Substantial capitalization or
investment in the form of
tools, equipment, machineries,
work premises and other
materials qualify a contractor
as an independent contractor.
14
Manila Water
Company v.
Pea
- Manila Water was contracted by the

Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS).
- It was engaged in the business of
managing the water distribution
system. Manila Water absorbed part
of the pool of the former employees of
MWSS.
- The private respondents in this case
were not absorbed by Manila Water.
Nevertheless, petitioner signed a
three-month contract with them to be
contractual collectors.
- Prior to the end of the contract, the
collectors formed the Association of
Collectors Group, Inc. (ACGI), with
which Manila Water transacted with
for its collection needs.
- When the petitioner terminated its
contract with the ACGI, the
employees filed a case for illegal
dismissal and money claims against
the petitioner. They claimed that they
were employees of Manila Water
- Whether or not
there exists an
employer-employee
relationship
between Manila
Water and private
respondents.
of SMC. Undoubtedly, the nature of

the work performed by private
respondents in shrimp harvesting,
receiving and packing formed an
integral part of the shrimp processing
operations of SMC. As for janitorial
and messengerial services, that they
are considered directly related to the
principal business of the employer
has been jurisprudentially
recognized.
SMC also had control over the private
respondents as evidenced by the fact
that their daily time records were
signed by SMC supervisors and
control of the premises in which
private respondents worked was by
SMC.
YES. The collectors were regular
employees of Manila Water and ACGI
was merely a labor-only contractor.
The work of the private respondents
was directly related to the principal
business or operation of the
petitioner.
ACGI was not an independent
contractor.
ACGI does not have substantial
capitalization or investment in the
form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises, and
other materials, to qualify as an
independent contractor. While it has
an authorized capital stock of
P1,000,000.00, only P62,500.00 is
actually paid-in, which cannot be
considered substantial capitalization.
Further, private respondents reported
daily to the branch office of the
petitioner because ACGI has no office
or work premises.
The work of the private respondents
- Job contracting is permissible

only if the following conditions
are met: 1) the contractor
carries on an independent
business and undertakes the
contract work on his own
account under his own
responsibility according to his
own manner and method, free
from the control and direction
of his employer or principal in
all matters connected with the
thereof; and 2) the contractor
has substantial capital or
investment in the form of
tools, equipment, machineries,
work premises, and other
materials which are necessary
in the conduct of the business.
- Labor-only contracting
refers to an arrangement
where the contractor or
15
since the methods and procedures of

their collections were controlled by
the petitioner.
- On the other hand, Manila Water
claimed that they were employees of
ACGI, the latter being an independent
contractor; thus, the employees had
no cause of action against it.
Rosewood
Processing,
Inc. v. NLRC
- All the complainants were employed

by the Veterans as security guards:
Napoleon Mamon, Arsenio Gazzingan,
Rodolfo C. Velasco, Armando Ballon,
Victor Aldeza, Jose L. Cabrera. All of
them at one time during their
employment with the security agency,
were assigned as a guard for
- Was it proper to
hold Rosewood
liable for the wage
differentials and
backwages/separati
on pay claimed by
the employeeguards?
was directly related to the principal

business or operation of the MWC.
Being in the business of providing
water to the consumers, the
collection of the charges by the
collectors for the petitioner can only
be categorized as clearly related to,
and in the pursuit of the latters
business.
- ACGI did not carry on an independent
business or undertake the
performance of its service contract
according to its own manner and
method, free from the control and
supervision of its principal, MWC.
Prior to private respondents alleged
employment with ACGI, they were
already working for MWC, subject to
its rules and regulations in regard to
the manner and method of
performing their tasks. This form of
control and supervision never
changed although they were already
under the seeming employ of ACGI.
- ACGI was engaged in labor-only
contracting, and as such, is
considered merely an agent of MWC.
The contractor is considered merely
an agent of the principal employer
and the latter is responsible to the
employees of the labor-only
contractor as if such employees had
been directly employed by the
principal employer.
- With respect to the wage
differential, all the guards except
Cabrera are entitled to claim wage
differentials from Rosewood
(solidarily with the Veterans)
corresponding to the time the guards
were assigned to Rosewood. Cabrera
was never assigned to Rosewood,
subcontractor merely recruits,

supplies or places workers to
perform job, work or service
for a principal, and any of the
following elements is present:
i. The contractor or
subcontractor does not
have substantial capital
or investment which
relates to the job, work
or service to be
performed and the
employees recruited,
supplied or placed by
such contractor or
subcontractor are
performing activities
which are directly
related to the main
business of the
principal; or
ii. The contractor does not
exercise the right to control
over the performance of the
work of the contractual
employee.
- An employer is solidarily liable

for legal ages due security
guards for the period of time
they were assigned to it by its
contracted security agency.
However, in the absence of
proof that the employer itself
committed the acts
16
Rosewood, except Cabrera.

- The said guards were dismissed for
several different grounds. It is
worthy to note that each of them was
dismissed while not being assigned as
a guard for Rosewood.
- A complaint for illegal dismissal;
underpayment of wages; and for
nonpayment of overtime pay, legal
holiday pay, premium pay for holiday
and rest day, thirteenth month pay,
cash bond deposit, unpaid wages and
damages was filed against Veterans
Philippine Scout Security Agency.
Thereafter, Rosewood was impleaded
as a third-party respondent by the
security agency.
therefore no wage differential for

him.
The guards are not entitled to
backwages/separation pay from
Rosewood because Rosewood never
committed the acts constitutive of
illegal dismissal or conspired with the
security agency in the performance of
such acts.
Under Art 106-109 of the Labor Code,
should the contractor fail to pay the
wages of its employees in accordance
with law, the indirect employer
(Rosewood in this case), is jointly and
severally liable with the contractor,
but such responsibility should be
understood to be limited to the extent
of the work performed under the
contract, in the same manner and
extent that he is liable to the
employees directly employed by him.
Similarly, the solidary liability for
payment of back wages and
separation pay is limited, under
Article 106, to the extent of the work
performed under the contract; under
Article 107, to the performance of
any work, task, job or project; and
under Article 109, to the extent of
their civil liability under this Chapter
[on payment of wages].
These provisions cannot apply to
Rosewood, considering that the
complainants were no longer working
for or assigned to it when they were
illegally dismissed. Furthermore, an
order to pay back wages and
separation pay is invested with a
punitive character, such that an
indirect employer should not be made
liable without a finding that it had
committed or conspired in the illegal
constitutive of illegal dismissal

or conspired with the security
agency in the performance of
such acts, the employer shall
not be liable for back wages
and/or separation pay arising
as a consequence of such
unlawful termination.
17
NFA v. Masada
Security
Agency
- MASADA Security Agency, Inc.,

entered into a one year contract to
provide security services to the
various offices, warehouses and
installations of NFA within the scope
of the NFA Region I following
expiration of which there were
monthly renewals thereof under the
same terms and conditions.
- Meanwhile, the Regional Tripartite
Wages and Productivity Board issued
several wage orders mandating
increases in the daily wage rate.
- Accordingly, respondent requested
NFA for a corresponding upward
adjustment in the monthly contract
rate consisting of the increases in the
daily minimum wage of the security
guards as well as the corresponding
raise in their overtime pay, holiday
pay, 13th month pay, holiday and rest
day pay.
- It also claimed increases in Social
Security System (SSS) and Pag-ibig
premiums as well as in the
administrative costs and margin.
- NFA, however, granted the request
only with respect to the increase in
the daily wage by multiplying the
amount of the mandated increase by
30 days and denied the same with
respect to the adjustments in the
other benefits and remunerations
computed on the basis of the daily
wage.
- An action for the recovery of a sum of
money was commenced by MASADA
against NFA.
- Whether or not the

liability of principals
in service contracts
under Section 6 of
RA 6727 and the
wage orders issued
by the Regional
Tripartite Wages
and Productivity
Board is limited
only to the
increment in the
minimum wage.
dismissal. There being no proof of

such commission or conspiracy,
Rosewood cannot be held liable for
the backwages and separation pay.
YES.
The legislature intended to limit the
additional obligation imposed on
principals in service contracts to the
payment of the increment in the
statutory minimum wage.
The parties may enter into
stipulations increasing the liability of
the principal. So long as the
minimum obligation of the principal,
i.e., payment of the increased
statutory minimum wage is complied
with, the Wage Rationalization Act is
not violated.
The parties acknowledged the
application to their contract of the
wage orders issued by the RTWPB
pursuant to RA 6727.
There being no assumption by NFA of
a greater liability than that mandated
by Section 6 of the Act, its obligation
is limited to the payment of the
increased statutory minimum wage
rates which, as admitted by
respondent, had already been
satisfied by NFA.
- Read Articles 106, 107 and

109 of the Labor Code.
18
Manila
Electric
Company v.
Benamira
- It was NFAs argument that

respondent cannot demand an
adjustment on said salary related
benefits because it is bound by their
contract expressly limiting NFAs
obligation to pay only the increment
in the daily wage.
The individual respondents are
licensed security guards formerly
employed by Peoples Security, Inc.
(PSI) and deployed as such at
MERALCOs head office.
Immediately after the security
service agreement between PSI and
MERALCO was terminated, fifty-six of
PSIs security guards filed a
complaint for unpaid monetary
benefits against PSI and MERALCO
before the NLRC.
Meanwhile, the security service
agreement between respondent
Armed Security & Detective Agency,
Inc., (ASDAI) and MERALCO took
effect and the individual respondents
were absorbed by ASDAI and
retained at MERALCOs head office.
Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision in the former case in favor of
the former PSI security guards.
Less than a month later, the
individual respondents filed another
complaint for unpaid monetary
benefits, this time against ASDAI and
MERALCO.
The security service agreement
between respondent Advance Forces
Security & Investigation Services,
Inc. (AFSISI) and MERALCO took
effect, terminating the previous
security service agreement with
ASDAI.
Whether or not
an employeremployee
relationship exists
between MERALCO
and the security
guards.
SC held that no such

relationship exists.
Under the security service
agreement, it was ASDAI which (a)
selected, engaged or hired and
discharged the security guards; (b)
assigned them to MERALCO
according to the number agreed
upon; (c) provided the uniform,
firearms and ammunition,
nightsticks, flashlights, raincoats and
other paraphernalia of the security
guards; (d) paid them salaries or
wages; and, (e) disciplined and
supervised them or principally
controlled their conduct.
The agreement even explicitly
provided that such security guards
shall be considered as employees of
the AGENCY alone.
In fact, the security service
agreements provided that all specific
instructions by MERALCO relating to
the discharge by the security guards
of their duties shall be directed to the
agency and not directly to the
individual respondents. This clearly
shows that MERALCO has no control
over their performance.
As such, respondents cannot be
considered as regular employees of
the MERALCO and the Agnecy is not
engaged in labor-only contracting
services since, although security
services are necessary and desirable
For the power of control

to be present, the person for
whom the services are
rendered must reserve the
right to direct not only the end
to be achieved but also the
means for reaching such end.
Not all rules imposed by the
hiring party on the hired party
indicate that the latter is an
employee of the former. Rules
which serve as general
guidelines towards the
achievement of the mutually
desired result are not
indicative of the power of
control.
Art. 107. Indirect
employer - The provisions of
the immediately preceding
Article shall likewise apply to
any person, partnership,
association or corporation
which, not being an employer,
contracts with an independent
contractor for the
performance of any work,
task, job or project.
Art. 106 and 109 of the
Labor Code
Four-fold test to
determine the existence of an
employer-employee relation,
namely: (1) the power to hire,
(2) the payment of wages, (3)
19
DOLE Phils. V.
Esteva
- DOLE and CAMPCO entered into a

Service Contract whereby CAMPCO
shall render services to DOLE in
exchange for the amount of
P220,000.00.
- DOLE issued a judgment after due
investigation that CAMPCO is
engaging in illegal labor-only
contracting services.
- CAMPCO then filed a case for illegal
dismissal of employees against DOLE
since the latter placed several of its
members on floating status.
- Whether or not
CAMPCO is
engaged in laboronly contracting.
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.
However, even if there is no
actual and direct employer-employee
relationship Meralco is still liable to
respondents for unpaid monetary
claims. When MERALCO contracted
for security services with ASDAI,
MERALCO became an indirect
employer and shall be solidarily liable
with the agency.
SC held that it is engaged in
labor-only contracting because
although some factors exists as to
qualify it as an independent job
contractor,
(1) It initially started only at
P6,600 paid-up capital. It only
managed to increase its capitalization
and assets in the succeeding years by
continually engaging in labor-only
contracting.
(2) CAMPCO did not carry out an
independent business from
petitioner. It was precisely
established to render services to
petitioner to augment its workforce
during peak seasons. They used tools
and equipment of DOLE when
rendering services to the latter.
(3) DOLE has control over
CAMPCO employees despite presence
of supervisor. They had to undergo
instructions and pass the training
provided by petitioners personnel.
Petitioner prepared the work
assignments of the CAMPCO
members.
the power to dismiss, and (4)

the power to control.
- Sec. 9, DO 18-02: Labor-Only

Contracting a) Any person
who undertakes to supply
workers to an employer shall
be deemed to be engaged in
labor-only contracting where
such person:
- 1) Does not have substantial
capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises
and other materials; and
- 2) The workers recruited and
placed by such person are
performing activities which
are directly related to the
principal business or operation
of the employer to which
workers are habitually
employed.
- b) Labor-only contracting as
defined herein is hereby
prohibited and the person
acting as contractor shall be
considered merely as an agent
or intermediary of the
employer who shall be
20
(4) CAMPCO merely acted as a

recruitment agency for petitioner.
Since the undertaking of CAMPCO
did not involve the performance of a
specific job, but rather the supply of
manpower only.
(5) CAMPCO members, including
respondents, performed activities
directly related to the principal
business of petitioner. They worked
as can processing attendant, feeder
of canned pineapple and pineapple
processing, nata de coco processing
attendant, fruit cocktail processing
attendant, and etc.
Hence, an employer-employee
relationship exists between them.
-
SC held that they are regular

employees because:
1. The activities performed by
respondents are necessary or
desirable to the usual business of
petitioner.
2. Respondents continued
employment for more than one year
clearly demonstrates the continuing
necessity and indispensability of
respondents employment to the
business of petitioner.
3. There is absence of proof that
the respondents were aware and had
knowingly and voluntarily agreed to
such term employment. Petitioner
did not enter into individual contracts
with the CAMPCO members.
Although the Service Contract of
1993 stated that it shall be for a
specific period, petitioner and
CAMPCO continued the service
arrangement beyond 1993. Since
there was no written renewal of the
responsible to the workers in

the same manner and extent
as if the latter were directly
employed by him.
- Violation of the afore-quoted
provision is considered a labor
standards violation and thus,
within the visitorial and
enforcement powers of the
Secretary of Labor and
Employment (Art. 128).
- The existence of an
independent and permissible
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.
- The primary standard,
therefore, of determining a
regular employment is the
reasonable connection
between the particular activity
performed by the employee in
relation to the usual business
21
Service Contract, there was no

further indication that the
engagement by petitioner of the
services of CAMPCO members was
for another definite or specified
period only.
Therefore, petitioners acts of
placing some of the respondents on
stay home status and not giving
them work assignments for more than
six months were already tantamount
to constructive and illegal dismissal.
or trade of the employer. The

test is whether the former is
usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade
of the employer.
22

Labor

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Labor

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LABOR LAW REVIEW CASE MATRIX I

EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

- This case consists of 2 consolidated

- W/n there was an

- To determine the existence of

- The said union was organized when

- Villamaria was the owner of

Corfarm did not even allege, much

- The jeepney owner/operatordriver relationship under the

- Eutiquio Bustamante had been an

- Under the boundary system, the

- The boundary system is a

- The significant factor in

to serve its business interests.

- In May 1994, the Mel & Jay

- Whether or not ABS

required to solicit business

- Case law has consistently held

Sonzas (SONZA) services exclusively

hiring of SONZA, because of his

the employee; (b) the payment

that produced the finished product of

- ABS-CBN employed respondents as

- WON the PAs are

- Ricardo De Vera is a physician by

- W/n there was an

- YES. Petitioners reliance in ABSCBN v. Sonza is misplaced. It must be

- Factors to determine EER:

- Aside from the four-fold test,

- He was hired by PhilCom on a

PhilCom what services he was going

- Supreme Packaging is in the business

the services rendered are necessary

- 4 Elements of EER (same as

- Almirez was hired as a Refinery

where and when Chavez

- Under the control test, an

Independent Contractors & Labor-Only Contractors

may be inferred that it is not enough

undertake the performance of its

own manner and method, and

- Lapanday Agricultural and

- WON the RTC had

- Who is liable to pay

his transfer as agency worker to

- Art. 107, Labor Code: Indirect

Wage Orders was the obligation of

- Sunflower is a labor-only contractor

mandated by the Labor Code

- Manila Water was contracted by the

of SMC. Undoubtedly, the nature of

- Job contracting is permissible

since the methods and procedures of

- All the complainants were employed

was directly related to the principal

subcontractor merely recruits,

- An employer is solidarily liable

Rosewood, except Cabrera.

therefore no wage differential for

constitutive of illegal dismissal

- MASADA Security Agency, Inc.,

- Whether or not the

dismissal. There being no proof of

- Read Articles 106, 107 and