1. Corazon Almirez v. Infinite Loop Technology Corporation G.R. No.

162401, 31
January 2006
Facts:
Corazon Almirez was hired as a Refinery Senior Process Design Engineer for a specific
project by the respondent through Rabino, its General Manager/President, with a guaranty of 12
continuous months.
Her professional services include, among others, preparation of process design terms of
reference or basis of design; review and revision as necessary of the existing conceptual process
block diagram or Process Flow Scheme of the refinery; implement new process technologies to
meet petroleum standards; and make reports and recommendations to the management team
regarding work progress and process design on a regular basis.
In her terms of payments, Almirez’ professional fees are $2,000 per month which she
requested be paid in 50/50 every 15th and 30th of the month. For her services, she received only
P30,000 per month already net of tax, but she received only a partial of 25,000 and not including
the SSS contributions. She asked that the company not deduct the taxes from her salary as she
voluntarily pays her SSS contributions. She averred that she wants to render her service by the
contract and she would be willing to serve as technical consultant on other relevant works while
waiting for the Masbate refinery project.
In response, Rabino stated that the letter was totally different from what they verbally
agreed upon in their house. Almirez sent a letter by counsel to Rabino, stating among others, that
she was suspended despite the guaranty of 12 months and that she was only paid P74,229.17 total
instead of the agreed professional fee. She averred that she suffered sleepless nights, anxiety and
besmirched reputation as she was constrained to resign from her job as engineer in view of the
contract with respondent. Respondent replied in letter stating that Arrox Resources, to which the
respondent is partnered with respect to the project, is encountering re-organization and have not
yet paid the respondent. Respondent asked petitioner to bear with them.
Petitioner filed a complaint against Infinite Loop before the NLRC for breach of contract;
asking for $22,000 representing wages, P300,000 moral damages, P100,000 exemplary damages
and 10% of total claim as attorney’s fees. Infinite moved to dismiss on ground of no jurisdiction,
there being no employer-employee relationship as the contract was one of service and not
employment.
 The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that there was employer-
employee relationship between the parties. It ordered respondents to solidarily pay petitioner the
$24,000 in its peso equivalent plus 5% attorney’s fees. The claim for damages was dismissed.
NLRC held otherwise, finding no employer-employee relationship finding that the
petitioner was hired to render professional services for a specific project. It ruled that it had no
jurisdiction over the case, reversing the LA decision and dismissing the petition.
Issue:
W/N there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
W/N the NLRC erred in not considering the relief of payment of salaries.
W/N there was an illegal dismissal.
Held:
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has
invariably applied the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or
absence of the power of control.
Of these four, the last one, the so called "control test" is commonly regarded as the most
crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee
relationship.
From the earlier-quoted scope of petitioner's professional services, there is no showing of
a power of control over petitioner. The services to be performed by her specified what she needed
to achieve but not on how she was to go about it.
In bolstering her contention that there was an employer-employee relationship, petitioner
draws attention to the pay slips and Infinite Loop's deduction of her SSS, PhilHealth, and
withholding tax, and to the designation of the payments to her as "salaries."

The deduction from petitioner's remuneration of amounts representing SSS premiums,

PhilHealth contributions and withholding tax, was made in the only pay slip issued to petitioner,
that for the period of January 16-31, 2000, the other amounts of remuneration having been
documented by cash vouchers. Such payslip cannot prove the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties.
 As for the designation of the payments to petitioner as "salaries," it is not determinative of
the existence of an employer-employee relationship. "Salary" is a general term defined as "a
remuneration for services given." It is the above-quoted contract of engagement of services-letter
dated September 30, 1999 together with its attachments, which is the law between the parties. Even
petitioner concedes rendering service "based on the contract," which, as reflected earlier, is bereft
of a showing of power of control, the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence of
an employer-employee relationship.