FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK, INC. VS. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU G.R. NO.

204944-45 DECEMBER 3, 2014

FACTS:

In 2005, Arlene S. Espiritu was engaged by Fuji Television Network, Inc. as a news correspondent/producer tasked to report
Philippine news to Fuji through its Manila Bureau field office. The employment contract was initially for one year, but was
successively renewed on a yearly basis with salary adjustments upon every renewal.

In January 2009, Arlene was diagnosed with lung cancer. She informed Fuji about her condition, and the Chief of News
Agency of Fuji, Yoshiki Aoki, informed the former that the company had a problem with renewing her contract considering
her condition. Arlene insisted she was still fit to work as certified by her attending physician.

After a series of verbal and written communications, Arlene and Fuji signed a non-renewal contract. In consideration
thereof, Arlene acknowledged the receipt of the total amount of her salary from March-May 2009, year-end bonus, mid-
year bonus and separation pay. However, Arlene affixed her signature on the nonrenewal contract with the initials "U.P."
for "under protest."

On May 6, 2009, Arlene filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NCR Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, alleging that she
was forced to sign the non-renewal contract after Fuji came to know of her illness. She also alleged that Fuji withheld her
salaries and other benefits when she refused to sign, and that she was left with no other recourse but to sign the non-
renewal contract to get her salaries.

On September 10, 2009, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and held that Arlene was not a regular employee but an
independent contractor.

On March 5, 2010, The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruled that Arlene was a regular employee since she
continuously rendered services that were necessary and desirable to Fuji’s business.

The Court of Appeals affirmed that NLRC ruling with modification that Fuji immediately reinstate Arlene to her position
without loss of seniority rights and that she be paid her backwages and other emoluments withheld from her. The Court of
Appeals agreed with the NLRC that Arlene was a regular employee, engaged to perform work that was necessary or
desirable in the business of Fuji, and the successive renewals of her fixed-term contract resulted in regular employment.
The case of Sonza does not apply in the case because Arlene was not contracted on account of a special talent or skill.
Arlene was illegally dismissed because Fuji failed to comply with the requirements of substantive and procedural due
process. Arlene, in fact, signed the non-renewal contract under protest as she was left without a choice.

Fuji filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, alleging that Arlene was hired as an
independent contractor; that Fuji had no control over her work; that the employment contracts were renewed upon
Arlene’s insistence; that there was no illegal dismissal because she freely agreed not to renew her fixed-term contract as
evidenced by her email correspondences.

Arlene filed a manifestation stating that the SC could not take jurisdiction over the case since Fuji failed to authorize Corazon
Acerden, the assigned attorney-in-fact for Fuji, to sign the verification.

Page 1 of 13
ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Arlene was an independent contractor?

2. Whether or not Arlene was a regular employee?
3. Whether or not Arlene was illegally dismissed?
4. Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly awarded reinstatement, damages and attorney’s fees?
HELD:

1. Arlene was not an independent contractor.

Fuji alleged that Arlene was an independent contractor citing the Sonza case. She was hired because of her skills.
Her salary was higher than the normal rate. She had the power to bargain with her employer. Her contract was for
a fixed term. It also stated that Arlene was not forced to sign the non-renewal agreement, considering that she sent
an email with another version of her non-renewal agreement.

Arlene argued (1) that she was a regular employee because Fuji had control and supervision over her work; (2) that
she based her work on instructions from Fuji; (3) that the successive renewal of her contracts for four years
indicated that her work was necessary and desirable; (4) that the payment of separation pay indicated that she was
a regular employee; (5) that the Sonza case is not applicable because she was a plain reporter for Fuji; (6) that her
illness was not a ground for her dismissal; (7) that she signed the non-renewal agreement because she was not in
a position to reject the same.

The level of protection to labor should vary from case to caese. When a prospective employee, on account of special
skills or market forces, is in a position to make demands upon the prospective employer, such prospective employee
needs less protection than the ordinary worker.

The level of protection to labor must be determined on the basis of the nature of the work, qualifications of the
employee, and other relevant circumstances such as but not limited to educational attainment and other special
qualifications.

Fuji’s argument that Arlene was an independent contractor under a fixed-term contract is contradictory. Employees
under fixed-term contracts cannot be independent contractors because in fixed-term contracts, an employer-
employee relationship exists. The test in this kind of contract is not the necessity and desirability of the employee’s
activities, “but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the
employment relationship.” For regular employees, the necessity and desirability of their work in the usual course
of the employer’s business are the determining factors. On the other hand, independent contractors do not have
employer-employee relationships with their principals.

To determine the status of employment, the existence of employer-employee relationship must first be settled
with the use of the four-fold test, especially the qualifications for the power to control.

The distinction is in this guise:

Page 2 of 13
 Rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of a mutually desired result without dictating the
means or methods to be employed creates no employer-employee relationship; whereas those that control or fix
the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means creates the relationship.

In appliacation, Arlene was hired by Fuji as a news producer, but there was no evidence that she was hired for her
unique skills that would distinguish her from ordinary employees. Her monthly salary appeared to be a substantial
sum. Fuji had the power to dismiss Arlene, as provided for in her employment contract. The contract also indicated
that Fuji had control over her work as she was rquired to report for 8 hours from Monday to Friday. Fuji gave her
instructions on what to report and even her mode of transportation in carrying out her functions was controlled.

Therefore, Arlene could not be an independent contractor.

2. Arlene was a regular employee with a fixed-term contract.

In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular, the applicable test is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business
or trade of the employer. The standard, supplied by the law itself, is whether the work undertaken is necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, a fact that can be assessed by looking into the nature of
the services rendered and its relation to the general scheme under which the business or trade is pursued in the
usual course. It is distinguished from a specific undertaking that is divorced from the normal activities required in
carrying on the particular business or trade.

However, there may be a situation where an employee’s work is necessary but is not always desirable in the usual
course of business of the employer. In this situation, there is no regular employment.

Fuji’s Manila Bureau Office is a small unit213 and has a few employees. Arlene had to do all activities related to
news gathering.

A news producer “plans and supervises newscast [and] works with reporters in the field planning and gathering
information, including monitoring and getting news stories, rporting interviewing subjects in front of a video
camera, submission of news and current events reports pertaining to the Philippines, and traveling to the regional
office in Thailand.” She also had to report for work in Fuji’s office in Manila from Mondays to Fridays, eight per day.
She had no equipment and had to use the facilities of Fuji to accomplish her tasks.

The successive renewals of her contract indicated the necessity and desirability of her work in the usual course of
Fuji’s business. Because of this, Arlene had become a regular employee with the right to security of tenure.

Arlene’s contract indicating a fixed term did not automatically mean that she could never be a regular employee.
For as long as it was the employee who requested, or bargained, that the contract have a “definite date of
termination,” or that the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by the employer and the employee, then the
validity of the fixed-term contract will be upheld.

3. Arlene was illegally dismissed.

Page 3 of 13
 As a regular employee, Arlene was entitled to security of tenure under Article 279 of the Labor Code and could be
dismissed only for just or authorized causaes and after observance of due process.

The expiration of the contract does not negate the finding of illegal dismissal. The manner by which Fuji informed
Arlene of non-renewal through email a month after she informed Fuji of her illness is tantamount to constructive
dismissal. Further, Arlene was asked to sign a letter of resignation prepared by Fuji. The existence of a fixed-term
contract should not mean that there can be no illegal dismissal. Due process must still be observed.

Moreoever, disease as a ground for termination under Article 284 of the Labor Code and Book VI, Rule 1, Section 8
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code require two requirements to be complied with: (1) the
employee’s disease cannot be cured within six months and his continued employment is prohibited by law or
prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees; and (2) certification issued by a competent
public health authority that even with proper medical treatment, the disease cannot be cured within six months.
The burden of proving compliance with these requisites is on the employer. Non-compliance leads to illegal
dismissal. blesvirtualLawlibrary

Arlene was not accorded due process. After informing her employer of her lung cancer, she was not given the
chance to present medical certificates. Fuji immediately concluded that Arlene could no longer perform her duties
because of chemotherapy. Neither did it suggest for her to take a leave. It did not present any certificate from a
competent public health authority.

Therefore, Arlene was illegally dismissed.

4. The Court of Appeals correctly awarded reinstatement, damages and attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. It also ordered reinstatement,
as the grounds when separation pay was awarded in lieu of reinstatement were not proven.

The Labor Code provides in Article 279 that illegally dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement, backwages
including allowances, and all other benefits.

Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is allowed only (1) when the employer has ceased operations; (2) when the
employee’s position is no longer available; (3) strained relations; and (4) a substantial period has lapsed from date
of filing to date of finality.

The doctrine of strained relations should be strictly applied to avoid deprivation of the right to reinstatement. In
the case at bar, no evidence was presented by Fuji to prove that reinstatement was no longer feasible. Fuji did not
allege that it ceased operations or that Arlene’s position was no longer feasible. Nothing showed that the
reinstatement would cause an atmosphere of antagonism in the workplace.

Moral damages are awarded “when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive
to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy.” On the other hand,
exemplary damages may be awarded when the dismissal was effected “in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent
manner.

Page 4 of 13
After Arlene had informed Fuji of her cancer, she was informed that there would be problems in renewing her
contract on account of her condition. This information caused Arlene mental anguish, serious anxiety, and wounded
feelings. The manner of her dismissal was effected in an oppressive approach with her salary and other benefits
being withheld until May 5, 2009, when she had no other choice but to sign the non-renewal contract.

With regard to the award of attorney’s fees, Article 111 of the Labor Code states that “[i]n cases of unlawful
withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount
of wages recovered.” In actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus, incur
expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney’s fees is legally and morally justifiablen.” Due to
her illegal dismissal, Arlene was forced to litigate.

Therefore, the awards for reinstatement, damages and attorney’s fees were proper.

Page 5 of 13
 Begino vs. ABS-CBN
G.R. No. 199166. April 20, 2015
J. Perez
Facts:
Respondent ABS-CBN Corporation employed respondent Amalia Villafuerte (Villafuerte) as Manager. ABS-CBN
engaged the services of petitioners Nelson Begino (Begino) and Gener Del Valle (Del Valle) sometime in 1996 as
Cameramen/Editors for TV Broadcasting. Petitioners Ma. Cristina Sumayao (Sumayao) and Monina Avila-Llorin (Llorin) were
likewise similarly engaged as reporters sometime in 1996 and 2002. Services of the aforementioned were engaged by
respondents thru talent contracts which, though regularly renewed over the years, provided terms ranging from three (3)
months to one (1) year.

While specifically providing that nothing therein shall be deemed or construed to establish an employer-employee
relationship between the parties, the aforesaid Talent Contracts included, among other matters, provisions in the contract
such as compliance with the ABS-CBN’s standard performance of work and the network’s policies and guidelines; talent’s
non-engagement in similar work; and non-observance of normal or fixed working hours.

Petitioners’ remunerations were denominated as talent fees, pegged per airing day. Claiming that they were regular
employees of ABS-CBN, they filed a complaint against the respondents before the Regional Arbitration branch of the NLRC,
which, decided in favor of petitioners who, having rendered services necessary and related to ABS-CBN’s business for more
than a year, were determined to be its regular employees, with said conclusion found to be buttressed by, among others,
the exclusivity clause and prohibitions under petitioners’ Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms which evinced
respondents’ control over them.

On appeal, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision, reversing the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
based on the following grounds: 1) petitioners were regarded as talents for period; 2) they were paid talent fees instead of
fixed salaries; 3) respondents did not exercise control over them; and 4) the existence of ER-EE is not necessarily established.
Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not ER-EE exists between and among the parties in the instant case.

Ruling:
To determine the existence of said relation, case law has consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit:
(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished.

Of these criteria, the so-called “control test” is generally regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator
of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is
said to exist where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end result
but also the manner and means utilized to achieve the same.

The Court finds that, notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms
and the terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN. Time and again, it has been

Page 6 of 13
ruled that the test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the activity
performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer. As cameramen/editors and reporters,
petitioners were undoubtedly performing functions necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s business of broadcasting
television and radio content.

If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or
merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated or continuing performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not
indispensability of that activity in the business.29 Indeed, an employment stops being co-terminous with specific projects
where the employee is continuously re-hired due to the demands of the employer’s business.

The decision appealed from is reversed and set aside.

Page 7 of 13
 Villamaria vs. CA
G.R. No. 165881. April 19, 2006
J. Callejo, Sr.

Facts:
Petitioner Oscar Villamaria, Jr. was the owner of Villamaria Motors engaged in assembling passenger jeepneys with
a public utility franchise to operate along the Baclaran-Sucat route. By 1995, Villamaria stopped assembling jeepneys and
retained only nine, four of which he operated by employing drivers on a "boundary basis." One of those drivers was
respondent Bustamant. to Villamaria as boundary and kept the residue of his daily earnings as compensation for driving the
vehicle. In August 1997, Villamaria verbally agreed to sell the jeepney to Bustamante under the "boundary-hulog scheme,"

A Kasunduan was entered into and between among the parties and under which, Bustamante was prohibited from
driving the vehicle without prior authority from Villamaria Motors. Thus, Bustamante was authorized to operate the vehicle
to transport passengers only and not for other purposes. He was also required to display an identification card in front of
the windshield of the vehicle; in case of failure to do so, any fine that may be imposed by government authorities would be
charged against his account. Bustamante further obliged himself to pay for the cost of replacing any parts of the vehicle
that would be lost or damaged due to his negligence.

Bustamante continued driving the jeepney under the supervision and control of Villamaria. In 1999, Bustamante
and other drivers who also had the same arrangement with Villamaria Motors failed to pay their respective boundary-
hulog. Sometime later, Villamaria took back the jeepney driven by Bustamante and barred the latter from driving the
vehicle.

Bustamante filed a Complaint7 for Illegal Dismissal against Villamaria and his wife Teresita, alleging among others
that he was employed by Villamaria in July 1996 under the boundary system, where he was required to remit P450.00 a
day. In their Position Paper, the spouses Villamaria admitted the existence of the Kasunduan, but alleged that Bustamante
failed to pay the P10,000.00 downpayment and the vehicle’s annual registration fees. They further alleged that Bustamante
eventually failed to remit the requisite boundary-hulog.

The LA rendered judgment in favor of the spouses Villamaria. On appeal, the NLRC ruled ruled that under the
Kasunduan, the juridical relationship between Bustamante and Villamaria was that of vendor and vendee, hence, the Labor
Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the complaint. Bustamante filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the NLRC resolved to
deny. Aggrieved, the matter was elevated before the CA, which reversed and set aside the NLRC decision.

Issue: Whether or not employer-employee relationship exists between the parties

Ruling:
Yes. The SC ruled that Article 217 of the Labor Code, an employer-employee relationship is an indispensable
jurisdictional requisite. The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to
disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other
labor statutes or their collective bargaining agreement. Not every dispute between an employer and employee involves
matters that only the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.
Actions between employers and employees where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental is within the

Page 8 of 13
exclusive original jurisdiction of the regular courts. When the principal relief is to be granted under labor legislation or a
collective bargaining agreement, the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC even
though a claim for damages might be asserted as an incident to such claim.

Under the boundary-hulog scheme incorporated in the Kasunduan, a dual juridical relationship was created
between petitioner and respondent: that of employer-employee and vendor-vendee. The Kasunduan did not extinguish the
employer-employee relationship of the parties extant before the execution of said deed.The boundary system is a scheme
by an owner/operator engaged in transporting passengers as a common carrier to primarily govern the compensation of
the driver, that is, the latter’s daily earnings are remitted to the owner/operator less the excess of the boundary which
represents the driver’s compensation.

Under this system, the owner/operator exercises control and supervision over the driver. It is unlike in lease of
chattels where the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased but the lessee is still ultimately responsible for the
consequences of its use. The management of the business is still in the hands of the owner/operator, who, being the holder
of the certificate of public convenience, must see to it that the driver follows the route prescribed by the franchising and
regulatory authority, and the rules promulgated with regard to the business operations. The fact that the driver does not
receive fixed wages but only the excess of the "boundary" given to the owner/operator is not sufficient to change the
relationship between them. Indubitably, the driver performs activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the owner/operator.

The exercise of control by private respondent over petitioner’s conduct in operating the jeepney he was driving is
inconsistent with private respondent’s claim that he is, or was, not engaged in the transportation business; that, even if
petitioner was allowed to let some other person drive the unit, it was not shown that he did so; that the existence of an
employment relation is not dependent on how the worker is paid but on the presence or absence of control over the means
and method of the work; that the amount earned in excess of the "boundary hulog" is equivalent to wages; and that the
fact that the power of dismissal was not mentioned in the Kasunduan did not mean that private respondent never exercised
such power, or could not exercise such power.

The Supreme Court denied the petition.

Page 9 of 13
 Bernarte vs.Phil. Basketball Association
G.R. No. 192084. September 14, 2011
J. Carpio
Facts:

Complainant Bernarte, along with fellow PBA referee Renato Guevarra, alleged that they were illegally dismissed
by PBA when their respective retainer contracts as referees were not renewed after two successive contracts in 2003. As
a result, they filed a complaint of illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. Complainant alleged that their repeated rehiring
by PBA made them employees of the latter. In addition, complainant alleged that PBA exercised control over the
performance of his work as evidenced by the stipulations on his contract which therefore rendered him an employee of
PBA. Among the stipulations raised by the petitioner where his being subjected to rating as referee, being required to
attend all basketball games by the PBA, to comply with all the requirements of the PBA governing the conduct of the
referees in and out of the court, to keep himself in good physical, mental and emotional condition during the term of the
contract, and being prohibited to officiate other basketball games outside the PBA and to conduct himself according to the
highest standards of honesty or morality, among others.

Labor Arbiter declared petitioner was an employee of PBA who was illegally dismissed and ordered the latter to
reinstate him with backwages and damages. NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. On appeal, Court of Appeals reversed
the decision of the NLRC declaring that petitioner was not an employee of PBA but an independent contractor. It ruled that
PBA did not exercise control over the means and methods in the performance of the complainant’s work. Hence the instant
appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed as an employee of the respondent PBA.

Ruling:

No. The petition is bereft of merit. To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law has
consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit:

(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;

(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is
accomplished.

The so-called "control test" is the most important indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee
relationship. The allegation by the complainant of the control imposed on him by the respondent was not sustained by the
Court ruling that those are mere guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the
means or methods to be employed in attaining it quoting from Sonza V. ABS-CBN and Insular Life V. NLRC.

The Court held that the referees exercise their own independent judgement, based on the rules of the game, as to
when and how a call or decision is to be made which decision PBA cannot overrule. The referees are the only, absolute,
and final authority on the playing court and respondent cannot control the referee when he blows the whistle because such
authority exclusively belongs to the referee.

The Court ruled petitioner is an Independent Contractor as indicated by the circumstances of his contract
particularly the number of hours required from him in the performance of his work and the non-deduction from his fees of
the statutory deductions such as the SSS, Philhealth and PagIBIG contributions which are regularly deducted from

Page 10 of 13
employees. As an independent contractor, the repeated rehiring of the petitioner does not prove that he is an employee
but a mere renewal of the contract between him and the PBA which the latter may or may not renew upon expiration either
for unsatisfactory performance or violation of its terms and conditions.

The Court also cited applicable foreign case law declaring that a referee is an independent contractor, whose special
skills and independent judgment are required specifically for such position and cannot possibly be controlled by the hiring
party (Yonan V. US Soccer Federation, Inc.).

Wherefore, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Page 11 of 13
 Javier vs. Fly Ace Corporation
G.R. No. 192558. February 15, 2012
J. Mendoza
Facts:
On May 23, 2008, Javier filed a complaint before the NLRC for underpayment of salaries and other labor standard
benefits. He alleged that he was an employee of Fly Ace since September 2007, performing various tasks at the respondent’s
warehouse such as cleaning and arranging the canned items before their delivery to certain locations, except in instances
when he would be ordered to accompany the company’s delivery vehicles, as pahinante. On May 6, 2008, he reported for
work but he was no longer allowed to enter the company premises by the security guard upon the instruction of Ruben
Ong (Mr. Ong), his superior.

Fly Ace averred that it was engaged in the business of importation and sales of groceries. Sometime in December
2007, Javier was contracted by its employee, Mr. Ong, as extra helper on a pakyaw basis at an agreed rate of ₱ 300.00 per
trip, which was later increased to ₱ 325.00 in January 2008. Mr. Ong contracted Javier roughly 5 to 6 times only in a month
whenever the vehicle of its contracted hauler, Milmar Hauling Services, was not available. On April 30, 2008, Fly Ace no
longer needed the services of Javier. Denying that he was their employee, Fly Ace insisted that there was no illegal dismissal.

LA: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on the ground that Javier failed to present proof that he was a regular employee
of Fly Ace; complainant has no employee ID showing his employment with the Respondent nor any document showing that
he received the benefits accorded to regular employees of the Respondents. His contention that Respondent failed to give
him said ID and payslips implies that indeed he was not a regular employee of Fly Ace considering that complainant was a
helper and that Respondent company has contracted a regular trucking for the delivery of its products.

NLRC: It ruled that the LA skirted the argument of Javier and immediately concluded that he was not a regular employee
simply because he failed to present proof. It was of the view that a pakyaw-basis arrangement did not preclude the
existence of employer-employee relationship. "Payment by result x x x is a method of compensation and does not define
the essence of the relation. It is a mere method of computing compensation, not a basis for determining the existence or
absence of an employer-employee relationship.

CA: Annulled the NLRC findings that Javier was indeed a former employee of Fly Ace and reinstated the dismissal of Javier’s
complaint as ordered by the LA. The CA exercised its authority to make its own factual determination anent the issue of the
existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. In an illegal dismissal case the onus probandi rests on
the employer to prove that its dismissal was for a valid cause. However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an
employer-employee relationship must first be established.

Issue: Whether or not payment to a worker on a per trip basis affirms the existence of ER-EE relationship.

Ruling:
No. In Chavez vs. NLRC, the Court ruled that payment to a worker on a per trip basis is not significant because "this
is merely a method of computing compensation and not a basis for determining the existence of employer-employee
relationship."

Page 12 of 13
 The Court’s decision does not contradict the settled rule that "payment by the piece is just a method of
compensation and does not define the essence of the relation." Payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate regular
employment. " The term ‘wage’ is broadly defined in Article 97 of the Labor Code as remuneration or earnings, capable of
being expressed in terms of money whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis. Payment by
the piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relations. Nor does the fact that the
petitioner is not covered by the SSS affect the employer-employee relationship. However, in determining whether the
relationship is that of employer and employee or one of an independent contractor, each case must be determined on its
own facts and all the features of the relationship are to be considered." Unfortunately for Javier, the attendant facts and
circumstances of the instant case do not provide the Court with sufficient reason to uphold his claimed status as employee
of Fly Ace.

To determine the existence of said relation, case law has consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit:

(a) the selection and engagement of the employee;

(b) the payment of wages;
(c) the power of dismissal; and
(d) the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished.

Of these elements, the most important criterion is whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to
control the employee not only as to the result of the work but also as to the means and methods by which the result is to
be accomplished.

In this case, Javier was not able to persuade the Court that the above elements exist in his case.1avvphi1 He could
not submit competent proof that Fly Ace engaged his services as a regular employee; that Fly Ace paid his wages as an
employee, or that Fly Ace could dictate what his conduct should be while at work. In other words, Javier’s allegations did
not establish that his relationship with Fly Ace had the attributes of an employer-employee relationship on the basis of the
above-mentioned four-fold test. Worse, Javier was not able to refute Fly Ace’s assertion that it had an agreement with a
hauling company to undertake the delivery of its goods. It was also baffling to realize that Javier did not dispute Fly Ace’s
denial of his services’ exclusivity to the company. In short, all that Javier laid down were bare allegations without
corroborative proof.

Page 13 of 13