Test of employer employee relationship philippines

Employer-Employee Relationship | Philippine Theo Law Gee

test of employer employee relationship philippines

Philippine Jurisprudence - Jesus G. Reyes Vs. Glaucoma and the economic reality test, no employer-employee relationship existed between. Test of employee employer relationship. 1. Gerry O. Gatawa, MBA; 2. Employee- Employer Relationship - It is created once a person, natural or. Pursuant to Article 5 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where.

The rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. At this juncture, the Court reminds all members of the bench and bar of the admonition in the often-cited case of Alonso v.

test of employer employee relationship philippines

Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts.

There should be no vested rights in technicalities. The Court is not persuaded. It is a basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation.

Most determinative among these factors is the so-called "control test. However, the Court agrees with the disquisition of the CA on this matter, to wit: The important factor to consider in the "control test" is still the element of control over how the work itself is done, not just the end result thereof.

Well settled is the rule that where a person who works for another performs his job more or less at his own pleasure, in the manner he sees fit, not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof, no employer-employee relationship exists. He never denied that he goes to work and leaves therefrom as he pleases. On the contrary, his letter 32 simply informed respondents that he will be away for a month and even advised them that they have the option of appointing his replacement during his absence.

“No employer-employee relationship” as defense in labor cases

This Court has held that there is no employer-employee relationship where the supposed employee is not subject to a set of rules and regulations governing the performance of his duties under the agreement with the company and is not required to report for work at any time, nor to devote his time exclusively to working for the company. Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality test in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.

Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties. This is especially appropriate when, as in this case, there is no written agreement or contract on which to base the relationship. In our jurisdiction, the benchmark of economic reality in analyzing possible employment relationships for purposes of applying the Labor Code ought to be the economic dependence of the worker on his employer.

In the instant case, as shown by the resume of [petitioner], he concurrently held consultancy positions with the Manila International Airport Authority from 04 March to September and from 01 November up to the present and the Anti-Terrorist Task Force for Aviation and Air Transportation Sector from 16 April to 30 June during his stint with the Eye Referral Center from 01 August to 29 April Accordingly, it cannot be said that the [petitioner] was wholly dependent on [respondent] company.

However, he does not dispute the findings of the CA that there are no deductions for SSS and withholding tax from his compensation, which are the usual deductions from employees' salaries.

Test Of Employer-employee Relationship | HR Practitioner's Guide

Thus, the alleged pay slips may not be treated as competent evidence of petitioner's claim that he is respondents' employee. In addition, the designation of the payments to petitioner as salaries, is not determinative of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

Additional evidence of the fact that petitioner was hired as a consultant and not as an employee of respondent corporation are affidavits to this effect which were executed by Roy Oliveres 37 and Aurea Luz Esteva, 38 who are Medical Records Custodian and Administrative Officer, respectively, of respondent corporation.

  • Employer-Employee Relationship

Petitioner insists in its objection of the use of these affidavits on the ground that they are, essentially, hearsay. However, this Court has ruled that although the affiants had not been presented to affirm the contents of their affidavits and be cross-examined, their affidavits may be given evidentiary value; the argument that such affidavits were hearsay was not persuasive. Lastly, the Court does not agree with petitioner's insistence that his being hired as respondent corporation's administrator and his designation as such in intra-company correspondence proves that he is an employee of the corporation.

The fact alone that petitioner was designated as an administrator does not necessarily mean that he is an employee of respondents. The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question of fact.

As a rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted, a finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence. The payroll and pay records did not include the name of respondent.

Employer-Employee Relationship - ALBURO VILLANUEVA LAW OFFICE

The affidavit of Ms. Agbay stated that after SEIRI started its business in purely on export trading, it ceased operations in as evidenced by Certification dated January 18, from the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC ; that when business resumed inSEIRI undertook only a little of manufacturing; that the company never hired any workers for varnishing and pole sizing because it bought the same from various suppliers, including Faustino Apondar; respondent was never hired by SEIRI; and while it is true that Mr.

Estanislao Agbay is the company President, he never dispensed the salaries of workers. This is a rattan trader with business address near Cebu Rattan Factory on a "Pakiao" basis. Inwe went back to Okay Okay located near the residence of Atty.

HR Basics: Employee Relations

Vicente de la Serna in Mandaue City. We were on a "pakiao" basis. We stayed put until when we resigned and joined Dodoy Luna in Labogon, Mandaue City as classifier until In [,] Jesus rested.

test of employer employee relationship philippines

It was only in that he worked back. He replaced me, as a classifier in Rattan Traders owned by Allan Mayol. But then, towards the end of the year, he left the factory and relaxed in our place of birth, in Sogod, Cebu. It was only towards the end of that Jesus was taken back by Allan Mayol as sizing machine operator. However, the work was off and on basis. As a brother, I allowed Jesus to work with me and collect the proceeds of his services as part of my collectibles from Faustino Apondar since I was on a "pakiao" basis.

He was working at his pleasure. Which means, he works if he likes to? That will be until I took him back towards the end ofthis time as a sizing machine operator. In all these years, his services are not regular. He works only if he likes to. As such, I have several rattan furniture workers under me, one of whom is Vicente Coming, the brother of Jesus Coming.

That sometime inVicente pleaded to me for a side line job of his brother, Jesus who was already connected with Allan Mayol. Having vouched for the integrity of his brother and knowing that the job is temporary in character, I allowed Jesus to work with his brother Vicente. However, the proceeds will be collected together with his brother Vicente since it was the latter who was working with me. He renders services to his brother work only after the regular working hours but off and on basis.

We, the undersigned, all of legal ages, Filipino, and resident[s] of Cebu, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say: