COSMOPOLITAN vs MAALAT

FACTS:
1962, petitioner Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. engaged the services of private respondent Noli Maalat as a
supervisor to handle the solicitation of mortuar! arrangements, sales and collections. "he funeral services #hich
he sold refer to the ta$ing of the corpse, em%alming, cas$eting, vie#ing and deliver!.
"he private respondent #as paid on a commission %asis of &.'( of the amounts actuall! collected and remitted.
19)*, respondent Maalat #as dismissed %! the petitioner for commission of the follo#ing violations despite
previous #arnings+
,a- .nderstatement of the reported contract price against the actual contract price charged to and paid %! the
customers/
,%- Misappropriation of funds or collections %! non0remittance of collections and non0issuance of 1fficial
2eceipt/
,c- Charging customers additional amount and poc$eting the same for the cost of medicines, linen, and securit!
services #ithout issuing 1fficial 2eceipt/
,d- Non0reporting of some em%alming and re0em%alming charges and poc$eting the same and non0issuance of
1fficial 2eceipt/
,e- 3ngaging in tom% ma$ing and inclusion of the price of the tom% in the pac$age price #ithout prior $no#ledge
of the customers and the compan!. ,4t p. 16, 2ecords-
Maalat filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non0pa!ment of commissions.
54612 426I"32 2.537+
o Maalat8s dismissal is illegal and ordering the petitioner to pa! separation pa!, commission, interests and
attorne!8s fee in the total amount of 92:','*1.'2.
N52C 2.537+
o "he decision of the 4r%iter is reversed and a ne# decision is rendered.
o "he dismissal of complainant Noli Maalat %! respondent0appellant as ;ustified and #ith la#ful cause.
ISSUE:
<hether or not the N52C erred in ruling that an emplo!ment relationship e=isted %et#een the parties>
<hether or not there #as e?uita%le %asis for the a#ard of 1@2 month separation pa! for ever! !ear of service>
HELD:
"he decision of N52C is affirmed. Aeparation pa! is disallo#ed. Msslst is entitled to claim for unclaimed commissions
and attorne!Bs fees.
RATIO:
In determining #hether a person #ho performs #or$ for another is the latter8s emplo!ee or an independent
contractor, the prevailing test is the right of control test. .nder this test, an emplo!er0emplo!ee relationship
e=ists #here the person for #hom the services are performed reserves the right to control not onl! the end to %e
achieved, %ut also the manner and means to %e used in reaching that end.
"he N52C, after its perusal of the facts and evidence on record, stated that there e=ists an emplo!ment relationship
%et#een the parties. "he petitioner has failed to overcome this factual finding.
C A S I P L E
"he fact that the petitioner imposed and applied its rule prohi%iting superiors from engaging in other funeral
%usiness #hich it considered inimical to compan! interests proves that it had the right of control and actually
exercised its control over the private respondent. In other #ords, Maalat #or$ed e=clusivel! for the petitioner.
"he petitioner admits that these prohi%itive rules %ound the private respondent %ut states that these rules have no
%earing on the means and methods ordinaril! re?uired of a supervisor. "he overall picture is one of emplo!ment.
"he petitioner failed to prove that the contract #ith private respondent #as %ut a mere agenc!, #hich indicates that
a supervisor is free to accomplish his #or$ on his o#n terms and ma! engage in other means of livelihood.
C A S I P L E