Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
C. The employee has not proven that he was selected and engaged
by respondent company.
3. Respondent company did not select, nor engage complainant. Rather,
it was the company President that selected the complainant based on
a personal recommendation made to him by an acquaintance.
D. The company President pays the employees wages.
4. Wages of complainant are paid directly by the company President, thru
personal funds, only subject to reimbursement by the company as a
fringe benefit to which the company President is entitled to by virtue of
his position.
5. Revenue Regulation No. 03-98 defines fringe benefits as:
Economic
Dependence
Test
finds
11.
The case of Francisco v. NLRC5 provides that the two tiered
test is especially appropriate in this case where there is
no written agreement or terms of reference to base the
relationship on; and due to the complexity of the relationship
based on the various positions and responsibilities given to the
worker over the period of the latters employment.
12.
13.
Complainant is not dependent upon respondent for his
continued employment. The payment of his salaries is not
sourced directly from respondent, but rather from the company
president, reimbursed to the latter as a fringe benefit by virtue of
his position in respondent company. The loss of the same benefit
will not result in complainants automatic dismissal from service,
proving that he is not the employee of respondent not being
economically dependent on the respondent.