CRC Agri Trading and Catindig v NLRC and Obias GR 177664

FACTS:
PETITIONERS opposed respondent Roberto Obias complaint claiming that he was a seasonal driver whose work
was irregular and not fixed. He was paid P175 daily but under a no work-no pay basis. He was also given a daily
allowance of P140.00 to P200.00. In April 2003, he worked only for 15 days, for which he was paid the agreed wages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and Obias.

HELD:
An employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and respondent. The elements to determine the
existence of an employment relationship are: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of
wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employers power to control the employees conduct. The most
important element is the employers control of the employees conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be
done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. All the four elements are present in this case.
First, the petitioners engaged the services of the respondent in 1995.
Second, the petitioners paid the respondent a daily wage of P175.00, with allowances ranging from P140.00 to
P200.00 per day. The fact the respondent was paid under a no work-no pay scheme, assuming this claim to be true,
is not significant. The no work-no pay scheme is merely a method of computing compensation, not a basis for
determining the existence or absence of employer-employee relationship.
Third, the petitioners power to dismiss the respondent was inherent in the fact that they engaged the services of the
respondent as a driver.
Finally, a careful review of the record shows that the respondent performed his work as driver under the petitioners
supervision and control. Petitioners determined how, where, and when the respondent performed his task. They, in
fact, requested the respondent to live inside their compound so he (respondent) could be readily available when the
petitioners needed his services. Undoubtedly, the petitioners exercised control over the means and methods by which
the respondent accomplished his work as a driver.