This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-07-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, this Court has generally relied on the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.[29] Among the four, the most determinative factor in ascertaining the existence of employer-employee relationship is the "right of control test".[30] "It is deemed to be such an important factor that the other requisites may even be disregarded."[31] This holds true where the issues to be resolved is whether a person who performs work for another is the latter's employee or is an independent contractor,[32] as in this case. For where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the means by which such end is reached, employer-employee relationship is deemed to exist.[33] | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Of these, it is the fourth or the 'control test' "where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end"[71] which assumes primacy. The 'control test' is the most important element in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.[72] | |||||
|
2011-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The dissent also erroneously cites eight other cases -- Social Security System v. Court of Appeals,[23] Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat,[24] Algon Engineering Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] Equitable Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] Lazaro v. Social Security Commission,[27] Dealco Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[28] South Davao Development Company, Inc. v. Gamo,[29] and Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corporation.[30] The dissent cited these cases to support its allegation that labor laws and jurisprudence should be applied in cases, to the exclusion of other laws such as the Civil Code or the Insurance Code, even when the latter are also applicable. | |||||
|
2011-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The Dissent cites the cases of Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[18] and Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission[19] to support the allegation that Manulife exercised control over the petitioner as an employer. | |||||
|
2004-07-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Neither does it follow that a person who does not observe normal hours of work cannot be deemed an employee. In Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat,[20] the employer similarly denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship, as the claimant according to it, was a "supervisor on commission basis" who did not observe normal hours of work. This Court declared that there was an employer-employee relationship, noting that "[the] supervisor, although compensated on commission basis, [is] exempt from the observance of normal hours of work for his compensation is measured by the number of sales he makes."[21] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| An indicum of regular employment, rightly taken into account by the labor arbiter, was the reservation by respondent Metromedia Times Corporation not only of the right to control the results to be achieved but likewise the manner and the means used in reaching that end.[10] Metromedia Times Corporation exercised such control by requiring petitioner, among other things, to submit a daily sales activity report and also a monthly sales report as well. Various solicitation letters would indeed show that Robina Gokongwei, company president, Alda Iglesia, the advertising manager, and Frederick Go, the advertising director, directed and monitored the sales activities of petitioner. | |||||