This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-12-03 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| This court has often used the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Under the four-fold test, the "control test" is the most important.[134] As to how the elements in the four-fold test are proven, this court has discussed that: [t]here is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the aforesaid elements. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. Identification cards, cash vouchers, social security registration, appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls, organization charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence of employee status.[135] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Consulta v. Court of Appeals,[35] this Court held: It should, however, be obvious that not every form of control that the hiring party reserves to himself over the conduct of the party hired in relation to the services rendered may be accorded the effect of establishing an employer-employee relationship between them in the legal or technical sense of the term. A line must be drawn somewhere, if the recognized distinction between an employee and an individual contractor is not to vanish altogether. Realistically, it would be a rare contract of service that gives untrammeled freedom to the party hired and eschews any intervention whatsoever in his performance of the engagement. | |||||
|
2007-02-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, in Consulta v. Court of Appeals,[11] we considered a non-involvement clause in accordance with Article 1306[12] of the Civil Code. While the complainant in that case was an independent agent and not an employee, she was prohibited for one year from engaging directly or indirectly in activities of other companies that compete with the business of her principal. We noted therein that the restriction did not prohibit the agent from engaging in any other business, or from being connected with any other company, for as long as the business or company did not compete with the principal's business. Further, the prohibition applied only for one year after the termination of the agent's contract and was therefore a reasonable restriction designed to prevent acts prejudicial to the employer. | |||||