ANASTACIO

VIANA v. ALEJO Al-LAGADAN sufficed to characterize him as an employee of Viana. The Court doesnt agree with
May 31, 1956/Concepcion, J. this.
By Cate Alegre In determining the existence of employer-employee relationship, the
following elements are generally considered: (1) the selection and
Summary engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
Alejandro Al-Lagadans parents wants to claim compensation under the Workmens dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees conduct the most
Compensation Act alleging that Viana was their sons employer. SC remanded the case to important element
the Commission to elicit further facts to establish the ee-er relationship in this case. Assuming that Alejandros share could partake the nature of wages, the second
element therefore exists. The records doesnt contain any specific data regarding the
Doctrine: third and fourth elements
In determining the existence of employer-employee relationship, the following For the first element, the facts are insufficient to warrant a reasonable conclusion.
elements are generally considered: (1) the selection and engagement of the According to Atty. Morente (lawyer of the WCC), the crew members are selected and
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power engaged by the patron and subject to his control and may be dismissed by him.
to control the employees conduct the most important element Viana averred that a contract of partnership existed. If Alejandro was a partner, then
neither Viana nor the patron can control or dismiss him.
Facts
Petitioner Anastacio Viana owned the fishing sailboat Magkapatid and Alejandro Al- Case was remanded to the Workmens Compensation Commission for further evidence
Lagadan was a crew member of the said boat. On September 3, 1948, the boat sunk and findings to determine the employer-employee relationship (who selected and
as a consequence of a collision with the USS Tingles, a US Navy vessel engaged the services of the crew; if selected by the patron, was Viana part of the
Respondents Alejo Al-Lagadan and Filomena Piga (parents of Alejandro) filed a decision; could Viana refuse to accept any of the crew members; did Viana have authority
claim for compensation under Act No. 3428 to determine the work conditions and who could dismiss the members)
February 23, 1953 a referee of the Workmens Compensation Commission ordered
Viana to pay the respondents
October 22, 1954 the decision was affirmed by the Workmens Compensation
Commissioner
Viana:
1) The gross income of his business for 1947 was less than P10,000 hence the case
doesnt fall under the purview of Act No. 3428
2) Alejandro Al-Lagadan was, at the time of his death, his industrial partner and
not his employee
o The owner receives of the earnings and the is divided pro rata among its
members (4 parts to the patron or captain, 3 parts to the piloto or next in
command, 1 parts to the wheelsman and 1 part each for the crew
members)

Issues
1. WON the case falls under the purview of Act No. 3438
2. WON Al-Lagadan is Vianas employee REMANDED
Held
1. The first ground raised by Viana is untenable.
Viana did not invoke this before the rendition of the Referees decision and was only
made when he sought a review of the said decision by the Workmens Compensation
Commissioner.
The non-applicability of the Act is a matter of defense which cannot be availed of
unless pleaded in the employers answer to the claim for compensation

2. Case was remanded to determine the employer-employee relationship
existing in this case
According to the Referee, as well as the Commissioner, the mere fact that
Alejandros share n the understanding could be reckoned in terms of money,
Vda. De Cruz vs. Manila Hotel
April 30, 1957| Bengzon. RATIO:
By: Ian An independent contractor is one who in rendering services, exercises
an independent employment or occupation and represents the will of
SUMMARY: his employer only as to the results of his work and not as to the means
Tirso Cruz1 and his orchestra are claiming gratuity benefits from Manila Hotel "whereby it is accomplished"
alleging that they are employees of the hotel entitled to the same. SC ruled that Factors to be considered are whether the contractor is carrying on an
Cruz is an independent contractor so there is no er-ee relationship between independent business
him/them and the Hotel hence they are not entitled to gratuity. o Whether the work is part of the employer's general business;
o The nature and extent of the work;
DOCTRINE: Er-ee relationship vs. Independent contractor o The skill required;
An independent contractor is one who in rendering services, exercises an o The term and duration of the relationship;
independent employment or occupation and represents the will of his employer o the right to assign the performance of the work to another;
only as to the results of his work and not as to the means "whereby it is o the power to terminate the relationship;
accomplished" o the existence of a contract for the performance of a specified
piece of work;
FACTS: o the control and supervision of the work;
For several years bandleader Tirso Cruz and his orchestra (hereafter Cruz et o the employer's powers and duties with respect to the hiring,
al.) have furnished music to the Manila Hotel (hereafter Hotel). firing and payment of the contractor's servants;
May 22, 1954- Corp owning the Hotel gave written notice to its o the control of the premises;
employees that beginning July 1, 1954, the Hotel would be leased to the o the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, material and
Bay View Hotel and those employees to be laid off would be granted a labor; and
separation gratuity computed according to specified terms and o the mode, manner, and terms of payment.''
conditions.
Cruz and his orchestra claimed gratuity but the mngt denied their In the case at bar:
claim saying they were not its employees. By Annex 1, the Hotel contracted or engaged the services of your
December 1954- Cruz et al. instituted action before the CFI of Manila. orchestra composed of fifteen musicians including yourself plus Ric
The complaint attached a copy of the announcement marked as Annex Cruz as vocalist" at P250 per day, said orchestra to "play from 7:30 p.m.
A. to closing time daily".
o Defense- filed Motion to Dismiss- alleged that Cruz et al. are not What pieces the orchestra shall play, and how the music shall be
its employees under the contract marked as Exhibit 1 which arranged or directed, the intervals and other detailssuch are left to
was submitted to the court. the leader's discretion.
o Cruz et al. are not GSIS members. The musical instruments, the music papers and other paraphernalia are
CFI- dismissed the complaint- Cruz et al. had no cause of action vs. not furnished by the Hotel, they belong to the orchestra, which in turn
defendant because they were not employees. belongs to Tirso Cruz not to the Hotel.
Appeal directly to the SC involving only questions of law. (During the The individual musicians, and the instruments they handle have not
pendency of the case Cruz died so he was substituted by his legal heirs.) been selected by the Hotel. It reserved no power to discharge any
musician.
ISSUE/HELD: How much salary is given to the individual members is left entirely to
WON Cruz et al. are employees of the Hotel hence entitled to gratutity. "the orchestra" or the leader. Payment of such salary is not made by the
No. Tirso Cruz was not an employee but an independent contractor furnishing Hotel to the individual musicians, but only a lump-sum compensation is
the service of his orchestra to the Hotel. given weekly to Tirso Cruz.



1Not sure if the actor pero baka hindi kasi di ba may the III ung actor (and 1957
case to)? (sorry lang kwenta ng footnote J)
LVN Pictures v. Philippine Musicians Guild industrial unrest. The causes of strikes and industrial unrest
January 28, 1961 | Concepcion, J. (employers refusal to bargain collectively and workers
By: Jadd inability to successfully bargain) are addressed by encouraging
Topical issue is discussed under Ratio 1)E-F. collective bargaining and protecting freedom of association
and selection of bargaining representatives regarding
SUMMARY: employment terms and conditions.
The Philippine Musicians Guild (FFW) filed a petition for certification election. 2. On the applicability of labor laws to other kinds of employees:
The CIR decided in the musicians favor. The SC affirmed the CIR, applying the The labor laws may also apply to other kinds of employees
Control Test and finding that the musicians are employees. such as independent contractors, not just employees in the
traditional sense.
DOCTRINE: 3. On the need to consider economic facts: Economic facts should
Control Test: An employer-employee relationship exists where the person for also be taken into account, in addition to technical and legal
whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to classifications, to give a broad definition to employees and
be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. (Citing Alabama employers in situations where economic relationships do not
Highway Express Co. v. Local 612) clearly fall under these categories. (Court in cited case gave the
example of contractualization, where employees are brought
FACTS: into an economic relationship with employers who are not
The Philippine Musicians Guild (FFW) petitioned the CIR for their employers.)
certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agency for all C) The CIR also cited the case of Connor Lumber Co., stating that the
musicians working in LVN, Sampaguita, and Premiere. (95% of the statutory definition of employee has a wide scope. Any
musicians were part of the PMG.) employee refers to employees in the conventional as well as legal
Only LVN and Sampaguita appealed. sense but excludes those expressly excluded by statute.
D) Applying these cases to the Philippine setting regarding the
ISSUES/HELD: statutory definition of employees:
1) WON the musicians are employees of the companies YES 1. On the Industrial Peace Acts purposes:
2) WON a petition for certification election (PCE) can be entertained when 1) Eliminate causes of industrial unrest by protecting self-
the employer-employee relationship is contested YES organization for collective bargaining;
3) WON there must be an allegation that the members of the Guild 2) Promote industrial peace through collective bargaining
constitute a proper bargaining unit NO 2. The CIR states that the employment contract alone does not
determine whether one is a worker, rather, whether the laws
RATIO: purpose can be effected by securing their guaranteed rights
1) Yes, the musicians are company employees. (The SC agreed with the and protection.
CIRs decision.) The CIR referred to American jurisprudence which E) On the Control Test:
looked into the purpose of the labor laws in relation to defining 1. The test: Where the person for whom the services are
employers and employees. In particular, the Control Test was relied performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be
upon. This test was then applied to the instant case, and it was held that achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in
based on the circumstances, the musicians are considered employees. reaching the end. (Citing United Insurance Company and
A) On the Courts basis: The CIR referred to American jurisprudence Alabama Highway Express Co. v. Local 612)
since the Industrial Peace Act (RA 875, the Labor Codes 2. On the decisive nature of the test in determining employer-
predecessor) is substantially the same as the Wagner Act and the employee relations: Such a relationship was held to exist
Taft-Hartley Law. between management and workers despite the intervention of
B) The CIR discussed the case of NLRB v. Hearts Publication (1944): an independent contractor who had and exercised the power
The term employee should be understood in the context of the to hire and fire. (Citing Gilchrist Timber Co.)
law and the facts in the economic relationship. 3. On the application of the Control Test where there are persons
1. On the purpose of the labor laws: These facilitate the flow of working under independent contractors: Where the
commerce by minimizing obstructions such as strikes and independent contractors have sufficient authority over the
 persons working under their immediate supervision to 3. Philippine Manufacturing Co. v. Vda. De Geronimo involved
warrant their exclusion from the unit, the employees working casual, not integral work (painting the tank of a soap
under the independent contractors supervision are included manufacturer.)
but the contractors themselves are excluded. (Citing Connor) 4. Vda. De Cruz v. The Manila Hotel Co. involved the GSIS law.
4. Another example of the application of the Control Test in 2) Yes, a petition for certification election can be entertained when the
relation to independent contractors: Despite being called employer-employee relationship is contested.
independent contractors, they will be considered employees A) There is no basis for saying otherwise.
where the employers control indicates that they are really 3) No, an allegation that the Guild members constitute a proper bargaining
employees. (Citing John Hancock Insurance Co.) unit is not necessary.
F) Applying these concepts to the case of the musicians: A) PCEs are investigations of a non-adversarial, fact-finding character.
1. The musicians work is an integral part of the motion picture: The investigating agency is a disinterested investigator regarding
1) The producer chooses the musicians from the music the employees choice of representative.
director. The producer and director agree on a price, and B) The companies actually contest whether the musicians are
the musical director engages his own men and pays their employees.
compensation. C) The determination of this issue is discretionary, and generally final.
2) The musicians are called for recording through call slips in (Citing NLRB v. May Dept. Store Co.)
the companys name, showing details such as the 1. Exception: Where there is arbitrariness or caprice. (Citing
musicians name, instrument, date, time, place of pickup. Marshall Field & Co. v. NLRB)
3) The company provides the studio, transportation, and
dinner.
4) It is the motion picture director (a company employee)
who supervises the recordings and tells them what to do in
detail. He supervises all the action, including the
appearance of musicians in scenes.
2. The companies have control over the musicians:
1) They call the musicians through company call slips;
2) They arrange schedules in the studio for recording;
3) They furnish transportation and meals to the musicians;
4) They supervise and direct in detail the musicians
performance through the motion picture director, to suit
the music to the picture.
G) The SC thinks that the CIR is correct, and that its decision is in line
with Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency v. Associated Watchmen and
Security Union (1958). The argument for a relationship of
independent contractors was even stronger in that case, since the
third parties with whom the management and workers contracted
with were registered and licensed to engage in the ship watchman
business.
H) The cases cited by the companies were not applicable.
1. Sunripe Coconut Product Co. v. CIR: Even though they were
employed as piece-workers under the pakiao system, they
were required to ensure that the nuts are pared whole or that
not much meat is wasted. There was a limitation or control as
to the means in accomplishing the service.
2. Viana v. Al-Lagadan did not settle the relationship because it
was remanded for further evidence.
Torillo v. Leogardo By virtue of a motion to quash filed by Aberdeen Court, a restraining
May 27, 1991 | Fernan, CJ. order was issued by the Ministry of Labor-NCR enjoining the sheriff
By: Kiko from proceeding with the auction sale. The restraining order was
eventually recalled.
(No discussion on employer-employee relationship. Baka nagkamali si Sir ng citation.) Upon appeal to the Office of the Minister of Labor, the restraining order
SUMMARY: Torillo invited his co-employees for a night out to celebrate his birthday.
was reinstated with the clarification that the order does not include
Aberdeen court requested its employees to refrain from going as the following day was a
working day, Despite such orders, Torillo pushed through with the activity inspite of
backwages.
warnings from Aberdeen Court. When Torillo reported for work the next day, he was Torillo filed a motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this
informed that he is dismissed from his employment for having defied Aberdeen Courts recourse by Torillo.
request. The dismissal was found illegal and Torillo was awarded separation pay and
backwages. A clarificatory order was issued stating that the award should not include ISSUES/HELD:
backwages. WON backwages should be awarded? Yes, an illegally dismissed employee
should be awarded both backwages and separation pay.
DOCTRINE: The clarification that the affirmative relief of backwages is available
only where reinstatement is ordered is erroneous. Article 279 of the Labor Code RATIO:
provides that "an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be Preliminarily, it must be stressed that the illegality of petitioner's dismissal is a
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges matter long settled. The finding of illegality of dismissal having
and to his full backwages." thus attained finality, petitioner now questions the scope and extent of the
reliefs granted to him by public respondent.

FACTS: The clarification that the affirmative relief of backwages is available only where
Valentino Torillo alias Lady Valerie was employed as an organist by reinstatement is ordered is erroneous.
Aberdeen Court with a daily compensation of P115.00 for a five hour
work a day. He invited his co-employees for a night out. Aberdeen Article 279 of the Labor Code provides that "an employee who
Court, through its floor manager, objected to such activity, requesting is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss
its employees to refrain from attending the affair because the following of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages."
day was a working day. Nonetheless, Torillo pushed through with his Backwages in general are granted on grounds of equity for earnings which a
birthday celebration. worker or employee has lost due to his illegal dismissal. Reinstatement, on
Torillo reported for work the next day. Aberdeen Court informed the other hand, means restoration to a state of condition from which one had
petitioner that he was being dismissed from his employment effective been removed or separated.
that the same day for having defied Aberdeen Courts order.
Torillo filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment a complaint Backwages and reinstatement are two reliefs given to an illegally dismissed
against Aberdeen Court for illegal dismissal with prayer for employee. They are separate and distinct from each other. However, in the
reinstatement with backwages, including payment of his unpaid wages, event that reinstatement is no longer possible, separation pay is awarded to
holiday pay and premium pay. Aberdeen Court justified Torillos the employee. Thus, the award of separation pay is in lieu of reinstatement
dismissal claiming that he abandoned his work in failing to report after and not of backwages. In other words, an illegally dismissed employee is
his birthday celebration. entitled to (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement
Director Estrella of the Ministry of Labor ruled that the theory of is no longer viable and (2) backwages.
abandonment of work was without legal and factual basis and found
that the dismissal was illegal. Seven years later, the appeal of Aberdeen In the light of the above rulings of this Court, petitioner, by reason of his illegal
Court was dismissed. dismissal is entitled to both separation pay and backwages. However, the
An urgent motion for execution was filed by Torillo. This was granted amount of backwages shall be based on the Mercury Drug Rule which limits
and Aberdeen court was ordered to pay the total amount of P280K, backwages of illegally dismissed employees to an amount equivalent to their
representing backwages, legal holiday pay, separation pay, and unpaid wages for three (3) years, without qualification and deduction. The Court has
wages. adopted the practice of fixing the amount of backwages at a reasonable level
without qualification and deduction so as to relieve the employees from proving
their earnings during their layoffs and the employer from submitting counter
proofs and thus obviate the twin evils of idleness on the part of the employees
and attrition and undue delay in satisfying the award on the part of the
employer. This practice has been hailed as a realistic, reasonable and mutually
beneficial solution. An award of backwages equivalent to three years (where
the case is not terminated sooner) serves as the base figure for such awards
without deduction.

With regards to petitioner's separation pay which was awarded to him in lieu of
reinstatement, he shall receive the amount equivalent to one month
wage/salary for every year of service, including the three-year period in which
backwages are awarded.

Petitioner Valentino Torillo was illegally dismissed in 1978. This case has been
pending for almost thirteen (13) years. In the interest of justice and equity as
well as to avoid any further ambiguities, this Court shall fix the exact amount
due petitioner. Thus, based on the records of the case, [30] we hold that the
total amount due to petitioner is P146,255.37.
Legend Hotel v. Hernani S. Realuyo 1998 by Christine Velazco, restaurant manager, for the increase of his
18 July 2012 | Bersamin, J. remuneration.
By: Jocs Dilag
b. WAGES - Legend Hotel: Remunerations were talent fee not included in LC
SUMMARY: definition of wages
The Pianist. Joey was a pianist in Legend Hotel for almost 7years until he was SC: The remuneration he receives (P400 or P750) denominated as talent
canned because of alleged cost-cutting measure by the latter. Is Joeys fees was fixed on the basis of his talent and skill and the quality of the
remuneration denominated as talent fee included in LC definition of wages? music he played during the hours of performance each night, taking into
Yes, whatever ER calls it, it is still included in the sense and context of LC account the prevailing rate for similar talents in the entertainment
definition of wages. industry. Remuneration even though denominated as talent fee is
included in the term wages provided in A97(f)2 of Labor Code. Clearly,
FACTS: respondent received compensation for the services he rendered as a
Joey R. Roa (stage name) worked as a pianist at the Legend Hotels Tanglaw pianist in petitioners hotel. Hotel cannot use the service contract to rid
Restaurant from September 1992 with an initial rate of P400.00/night (later itself of the consequences of its employment of respondent.
increased to P750) that was given to him after each nights performance. During
his employment, he could not choose the time of performance, which had been c. DISMISSAL - The memorandum informing Joey of the discontinuance of
fixed from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm for 3 - 6 times/week. He added that the Legend his service because of the present business or financial condition of hotel
Hotels restaurant manager had required him to conform with the venues motif showed that the latter had the power to dismiss him from employment
and that he had been subjected to the rules on employees representation
checks and chits, a privilege granted to other employees. d. CONTROL He could not choose the time and place of his performance,
9 July 1999: The management had notified him that as a cost-cutting measure, hes sometimes required to perform only Tagalog songs or music or to
his services as a pianist would no longer be required effective 30 July. Thus, he wear barong Tagalog to conform to the Filipiniana motif, and he was
filed complaint for ULP, constructive illegal dismissal, underpayment / subjected to the rules on employees representation check and chits, a
nonpayment of premium pay for holidays, separation pay, service incentive privilege granted to other employees.
leave pay and 13th month pay.
Hotel: Hes just a talent not an employee Hotels argument: He only works for 3 hours/day, thus hes not an employee
LA: Employer-Employee relationship exists; SC: In providing that the " normal hours of work of any employee shall not
NLRC: No ER-EE relationship; exceed eight (8) hours a day," Article 83 of the Labor Code only set a
CA: Reinstated LA maximum of number of hours as "normal hours of work" but did not
prohibit work of less than eight hours.
ISSUES/HELD:
WON Joey was an employee of Legend. YES, all four requisites of ER-EE WRT cause of termination
relationship are present. The reason given by Legend Hotel was retrenchment due to business losses.
WON the fact that he doesnt work for 8 hours negates the ER-EE However, in termination cases the burden of proving that the termination is
relationship. NO, Labor Code only set a maximum number of hours as normal valid lies with the employer. Here, they didnt even try to submit evidence to
work hours (8hrs) but did not prohibit work of less than 8 hours. prove their claim. For failing to substantiate their claim with substantial
evidence, the Ct said that the retrenchment wasnt valid.
If he is an employee, whether he was validly terminated. NO, retrenchment
was not valid for failing to prove that such was necessary due to business losses

RATIO: 2XXX wage paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings, however designated,
WRT ER-EE Relationship capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece,
The Ct resolved this issue by enumerating the requisites for er-ee relationship or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to
to be established: an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done,
or for services rendered or to be rendered, and includes the fair and reasonable value, as
a. SELECTION The hotel actually wielded the power of selection determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished
evidenced by the express written recommendation dated January 12, by the employer to the employee.
Javier v. Fly Ace Corp b) In December 2007, Javier was contracted employee Mr. Ong, as extra
February 15, 2012 | Mendoza, J. helper on a pakyaw basis at an agreed rate per trip.
By: Monica c) Mr. Ong contracted Javier roughly 5 to 6 times only in a month
whenever the vehicle of its contracted hauler, Milmar Hauling Services,
SUMMARY: was not available. On April 30, 2008, Fly Ace no longer needed the
Javier filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Fly Ace before the NLRC services of Javier.
alleging that he was a regular employee working as a stevedore/pahinante
when he was terminated without notice. Fly Ace denied that Javier was its Fly Ace denied that Javier was its employee and insisted that there was no
employee because he was only contracted on a pakyaw basis. illegal dismissal. It submitted a copy of its agreement with Milmar Hauling
Services and copies of acknowledgment receipts evidencing payment to Javier
DOCTRINE: (4-fold Test) for his contracted services bearing the words, daily manpower (pakyaw/piece
Before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee rate pay) and the latters signatures/initials.
relationship must first be established by the petitioner by substantial evidence.
The LA dismissed the complaint and said that Javier failed to present proof (ID,
The burden lies on the petitioner to pass the well-settled tests to determine the document of his receipt of benefits accorded to regular employees) that he was
existence of an employer-employee relationship, viz: (1) the selection and a regular employee of Fly Ace, and that since there is a regular hauler to deliver
engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of Fly Aces products, more weight was given to the claim that Javier was
dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees conduct. Of these contracted on pakyaw basis.
elements, the most important criterion is whether the employer controls or has
reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work The NLRC ruled for Javier and said that a pakyaw-basis arrangement did not
but also as to the means and methods by which the result is to be accomplished. preclude the existence of employer-employee relationship, and that Javier was a
regular employee of Fly Ace because there was reasonable connection between
FACTS: the particular activity he performed as a pahinante in relation to the usual
Javier filed a complaint before the NLRC for underpayment of salaries and other business or trade of the employer.
labor standard benefits.
CA annulled the NLRC ruling and said that it is incumbent upon Javier to prove
Javier alleged that: the employee-employer relationship by substantial evidence, but he failed to
a) he was an employee of Fly Ace since September 2007, performing discharge his burden. The non-issuance of a company-issued identification card
various tasks at the respondents warehouse except when he would be to Javier supports Fly Aces contention that Javier was not its employee.
ordered to accompany the companys delivery vehicles, as pahinante;
b) he reported for work from Monday to Saturday from 7AM to 5PM; ISSUES/HELD:
c) he was never issued an identification card and payslips by the WON Javier was regular employee of Fly Ace. NO, onus probandi was on Javier
company; and he failed to provide substantial evidence.
d) on May 6, 2008, he reported for work but he was no longer allowed to
enter the company premises by the security guard upon the instruction RATIO:
of Ruben Ong, his superior. He later found out that it was related to Mr. Before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee
Ong courting his daughter. relationship must first be established. Existence of an employer-employee
e) thereafter, Javier was terminated from his employment without notice. relationship is essentially a question of fact. The petitioner needs to show by
substantial evidence that he was indeed an employee of the company against
Javier presented an affidavit, subscribed before the labor arbiter, of one Bengie which he claims illegal dismissal. "Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits
Valenzuela who alleged that Javier was a stevedore or pahinante of Fly Ace from provided by law should establish his or her right thereto". Javier failed to
September 2007 to January 2008. adduce substantial evidence as basis for the grant of relief.

Fly Ace averred that: All that Javier presented were his self-serving statements purportedly showing
a) it was engaged in the business of importation and sales of groceries. his activities as an employee of Fly Ace. Clearly, Javier failed to pass the
substantiality requirement to support his claim.

The lone affidavit executed by one Bengie Valenzuela was unsuccessful in
strengthening Javiers claim that he was a regular employee. In said document,
all Valenzuela attested to was that he would frequently see Javier at the
workplace where the latter was also hired as stevedore.

The Court is of the considerable view that on Javier lies the burden to pass the
well-settled tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, viz: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the
employees conduct. Of these elements, the most important criterion is whether
the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not
only as to the result of the work but also as to the means and methods by which
the result is to be accomplished.

Javier could not submit competent proof that Fly Ace engaged his services as a
regular employee; that Fly Ace paid his wages as an employee, or that Fly Ace
could dictate what his conduct should be while at work. In other words, Javiers
allegations did not establish that his relationship with Fly Ace had the attributes
of an employer-employee relationship on the basis of the above-mentioned
four-fold test. All that Javier laid down were bare allegations without
corroborative proof.

Fly Ace does not dispute having contracted Javier and paid him on a "per trip"
rate as a stevedore, albeit on a pakyaw basis. The Court cannot fail to note that
Fly Ace presented documentary proof that Javier was indeed paid on a pakyaw
basis per the acknowledgment receipts admitted as competent evidence by the
LA. Unfortunately for Javier, his mere denial of the signatures affixed therein
cannot automatically sway us to ignore the documents because "forgery cannot
be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and
the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery."

One final note. The Courts decision does not contradict the settled rule that
"payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the
essence of the relation." Payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate regular
employment. "The term wage is broadly defined in Article 97 of the Labor Code
as remuneration or earnings, capable of being expressed in terms of money
whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis.
Payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the
essence of the relations. Nor does the fact that the petitioner is not covered by
the SSS affect the employer-employee relationship. However, in determining
whether the relationship is that of employer and employee or one of an
independent contractor, each case must be determined on its own facts and all
the features of the relationship are to be considered.