III.

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

A. FourFold Test
1. Republic of the Philippines vs SSS GR No. 172101
November 23, 2007 – Carla
Facts: Respondent Asiapro Cooperative is composed of owners-
members with primary objectives of providing them savings and credit
facilities and livelihood services. In discharge of said objectives, Asiapro
entered into several service contracts with Stanfilco. Sometime later, the
cooperative owners-members requested Stanfilco’s help in registering
them with SSS and remitting their contributions. Petitioner SSS informed
Asiapro that being actually a manpower contractor supplying employees
to Stanfilco, it must be the one to register itself with SSS as an employer
and remit the contributions. Respondent continuously ignoring the
demand of SSS the latter filed before the SSC. Asiapro alleges that there
exists no employer-employee relationship between it and its owners-
members. SSC ruled in favor of SSS. On appeal, CA reversed the
decision.

Issue: Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship between

Asiapro and its owners-members.

Ruling: YES there is an existing employer-employee relationship

between Asiapro & its owners-members. In determining the existence of
an employer-employee relationship, the following elements are
considered: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) the
payment of wages by whatever means; (3) the power of dismissal; and
(4) the power to control the worker‘s conduct, with the latter assuming
primacy in the overall consideration. As to the first requisite, it is expressly
provided in the Service Contracts that it is the respondent cooperative
which has the exclusive discretion in the selection and engagement of
the owners-members as well as its team leaders who will be assigned at
Stanfilco. As to the payment of wages by whatever means, it cannot be
doubted then that those stipends or shares in the service surplus are
indeed wages, because these are given to the owners-members as
compensation in rendering services to respondent cooperative‘s client,
Stanfilco. As to the third requisite on the power of dismissal, it is the
respondent cooperative which has the power to investigate, discipline
and remove the owners-members and its team leaders who were
rendering services at Stanfilco. And lastly as to the power to control the
worker’s conduct, it is the respondent cooperative which has the sole
control over the manner and means of performing the services under the
said service contracts with Stanfilco as well as the means and methods
of work. Also, the respondent cooperative is solely and entirely
responsible for its owners-members, team leaders and other
representatives at Stanfilco. All these clearly prove that, indeed, there is
an employer-employee relationship between the respondent cooperative
and its owners-members.

2. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp vs NLRC 187 SCRA

694 (1990) – Richard

B. Economic Reality Test

1. Orozco vs CA and Philippine Daily Inquirer GR No.
155207 (2008), 562 SCRA 36 (2008) - Lontok

2. Other forms of relationship

Independent Contractor /Job Contractors
a. DO No. 18-A
b. Insular Life Assurance Co Ltd vs
NLRC - GR No. 84484 (1989) -
179 SCRA 459 (1989) - Devie
c. Singer Sewing Machine vs Drilon
193 SCRA270 (1991) - Carla
d. Besa vs Trajano 146 SCRA 501
(1986) – Richard
e. Sonza vs ABS CBN GR No.
138051 (2004) - 431 SCRA 583 -
Lontok
f. Ushio Marketing vs NLRC GR No.
124551, August 28, 1998 – Devie
IV. Categories and Classifications of employment
and workers

A. Regular employment
1. Article 280 (294), Labor Code
2. De Leon vs. NLRC 176 SCRA 615 (1989) -
Carla
3. Magsalin vs. NOWM, GR No. 148492, May 9,
2003 – Richard

B. Casual Employment
1. Kimberly Independent Labor Union vs.
Drilon 185 SCRA 190 (1990) - Lontok
2. Capule vs. NLRC 191 SCRA 374 (1990) -
Devie
3. Caro vs. Rilloraza 102 Phil 70 – Carla

C. Seasonal Employment
1. Hacienda Fatima Inc. vs. National
Federation of Sugar Cane Workers, GR No.
149440, January 28, 2003 – Richard
2. Gaco vs. NLRC 230 SCRA 260 (1994) -
Lontok
3. Gapayao vs. Fulo & SSS GR No. 193493, 13
June 2013 – Devie

D. Project Employment
1. Policy Instruction No. 20
2. ALU – TUCP vs. NLRC 234 SCRA 678 (1994)
- Carla
3. Ricardo Fernandez vs. NLRC 230 SCRA 460
(1994) – Richard
4. DM Consunji vs. Jamin GR No. 192514, 18
April 2012 - Lontok
5. Aurora Land Projects Corp vs. NLRC 266
SCRA 48 - Devie
6. De Ocampo Jr. vs. NLRC 186 SCRA 360
(1990) – Carla

E. Contractual employees/ Fixed period

employment
1. Brent School vs. Zamora 181 SCRA 702
(1990) - Richard
2. Millares vs. NLRC 385 SCRA 306 (2002) -
Lontok
3. Phil. Village Hotel vs. NLRC 230 SCRA 423
(1994) – Devie
 4. Medenilla vs. Phil. Veterans Bank 328 SCRA
1 (2000) - Carla

F. Probationary employment
1. Article 281 (295)
2. International Catholic Migration Commission
vs. NLRC 169 SCRA 606 (1989) - Richard
3. Mariwasa vs. Loegardo 169 SCRA 465 -
Lontok
4. Ver Buiser vs. Leogardo & General Tel.
Directory Co. 131 SCRA 152 (1984) - Devie
5. Holiday Inn Manila vs. NLRC 226 SCRA 417
(1993) - Carla
6. A.M Oreta vs. NLRC 176 SCRA 218 (1989) –
Richard
7. Euro. Linea Phil vs. NLRC & Cruz 156 SCRA
78 (1987) - Devie
8. Phil Daily Inquirer vs. Magtibay 528 SCRA
355 (2007) - Carla
9. Mercado vs. AMA Computer College 618
SCRA 218 (2010) – Richard

G. Apprentices/Learners
1. Title II Chapter I Book II Labor Code
2. Filamer Christian Institute vs Court of
Appeals, GR No. 75112, October 16, 1990
- Lontok

H. Handicapped workers
1. RA 7277
2. Bernardo vs. NLRC & Far East Bank GR No.
122917, July 12, 1999 - Devie