Chavez v.

NLRC
448 SCRA 478
Facts
Petitioner Pedro Chavez was hired as truck driver of Private Respondent Supreme Packaging, Inc.
Chavez requested to avail himself of the benefits that a regular employees were receiving but his request was
denied
Chavez filed before NLRC a complaint for regularization. Later on he was dismissed by SPI
He later on filed an amended complaint for illegal dismissal
Issue
1. W/N there existed an employer-employee relationship between SPI and Chavez?
2.W/N Chavez is an independent contractor?
Held
1. Yes, there existed an employer-employee relationship between SPI and Chavez
Applying four-fold test, all elements are present
1. selection and engagement of the employee
- it was SPI who engaged the services of Chavez without intervention of third party
2. payment of wages
- that petitioner was paid on per trip basis is not significant, this is merely a method of computing
compensation and not a basis for determining the existence or absence of er-ee relationship
3. power of dismissal
- power to dismiss was inherent in the fact that they engaged the services of Chavez as driver
4. power to control employee's conduct
- an employee is subject to employer's power to control the means and method by which the work is to be
performed while an independent contractor is free from control and supervision of employer
* Manifestation of Power of Control of SPI to Chavez
1. truck was owned by SPI
2.express instruction in the method of delivery
3.instruction on parking of delivery truck
4.instruction on when and where Chavez would perform his task by issuing to him gate passes and routing
slips
2.Chavez is not and Independent Contractor
* Proof that Chavez is not an Independent Contractor
1. Chavez did not own the truck
2.SPI did not have substantial capitalization or investment
3.Delivery was exclusively done for SPI for 10years
* Er-Ee Relationship cannot be negated by expressly repudiating it in contract and providing therein that
the employee is an independent contractor. Indeed the employment status of the person is defined and
prescribed by law and not by what parties say it should be.