Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEDRO CHAVEZ v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 155207 2008-08-13	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA NACHURA, J.
In our jurisdiction, the Court has held that an independent contractor is one who carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work, or service on one's own account and under one's own responsibility according to one's 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.[45]
	GR No. 172101 2007-11-23	REPUBLIC v. ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following elements are considered: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) the payment of wages by whatever means; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the worker's conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration.[25] The most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish.[26] The power of control refers to the existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise thereof. It is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee; it is enough that the employer has the right to wield that power.[27] All the aforesaid elements are present in this case.
	GR NO. 167953 2007-04-04	DANNY MAME v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In cases where abandonment is the cause for termination of employment, two factors must concur: (1) there is a clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume employment; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.[17] The burden of proof that there was abandonment lies with the employer. Where the employee takes steps to protest his layoff, it cannot be said that he has abandoned his work because a charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, more so when it includes a prayer for reinstatement.[18]