Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
NLRC
Facts:
Issues:
Ruling:
1. Yes
In determining whether a person who performs work for another is the latter's
employee or an independent contractor, the prevailing test is the "right of
control" test.
The petitioner argues that Maalat was never its employee for he was only a
commission agent whose work was not subject to its control.
Looking on the facts of the case, it can be inferred that there existed an
employee-employer relationship due to presence of control by the petitioner
over the private respondent:
- Private respondent worked exclusively for the petitioner and was not
allowed to rendered any service with other company.
- One of the cause of the dismissal of the petitioner was due to engaging in
a part-time embalming business outside the company.
Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication
or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with
a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed
employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it
is called, on the ground of social justice.
This Court pronounces that the grant of separation pay to private respondent
Maalat, who was validly terminated for dishonesty, is not justified.