You are on page 1of 5

1.

Singer Sewing Machine


---> Proclamation in a certification election that union members are employees n
ot controlling in determining presence of Er-Ee relation.
2. Manila Golf Club
--->Caddies are not employees of a golf club as the latter do not exercise contr
ol over their jobs. While they are subject to the rules to be observed while in
the premises of the golf club, they are not instructed as to how they should car
ry out their task.
3. ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA (PHIL) INC. vs NLRC
--> Sales Division Manager of Encyclopaedia Britannica who has own office and re
ceive commissions from sales of his agents is not an employee when he has free r
eign on his work and works on his own time. Where a person who works for another
does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours o
r conditions of work, and in turn is compensated according to the result of his
efforts and not the amount thereof.
4. CARUNGCONG vs NLRC, et. al.
--> Insurance sales agent earning on commission and working at her own pleasure
is not an employee, despite being required to follow company rules and regulatio
ns. What governs the relation between her and the insurance company is the provi
sions on the contract of agency.
5. SONZA vs ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP.
--> TV and radio talents are independent contractors when broadcast company does
not exercise control over the methods of carrying out their task, despite being
required to exclusively render service to company.
--> Payment of SSS and Philhealth is not indicative of Er relationship when thes
e are stipulated in the contract between the talent and the broadcasting corp.
This practice of exclusivity is not designed to control the means and methods of
work of the talent, but simply to protect the investment of the broadcast stati
on.
6. ABS-CBN vs Nazareno
-->Production Assistants are not talents because they are not actors or radio sp
ecialists. They are employees despite being paid with talent fees if they perfo
rm several different duties under the control and direction of ABS-CBN executive
s and supervisors.
Respondents cannot be considered "talents" because they are not actors or actres
ses or radio specialists or mere clerks or utility employees.
7. RAMOS vs CA
-->Medical Consultants or visiting physicians are not employees of a hospital.
Hospital exercises no:
Power to hire and pay- The hospital does not hire consultants but it accredits a
nd grants him the privilege of maintaining a clinic and/or admitting patients. I
t is the patient who pays the consultants.

Power of Control -- The hospital s obligation is limited to providing the patient


with the preferred room accommodation and other things that will ensure that the
doctor s orders are carried out.
8. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATION vs DE VERA
--> Retainer arrangement does not give rise to employment relationship.
- Physician knowingly engaged under retainer contract on a yearly basis that was
renewed annually. No control was exercised over the means by which he examines
patients.
9. Coca-cola Bottlers vs Dr Climaco
-->Comprehensive Medical Plan in a retainer agreement wherein the physician's ob
jectives, duties, and obligations are outlined is not indicative of presence of
employment relationship as IT DOES NOT TELL RESPONDENT HOW TO CONDUCT HIS PHYSIC
AL EXAMINATION, HOW TO IMMUNIZE, or HOW TO DIAGNOSE and TREAT PATIENTS that are
employees of the company.
--->The Comprehensive Medical Plan is only a guideline to ensure that the end re
sult is achieved.
--->Providing schedule of work and a requirement to be on-call for emergency cas
es do not amount to power of control as these are merely incidents to the Retain
er Agreement.
10. Nogales vs Capitol Medical Center
-->Consultant physician who enjoyed staff privileges in a hospital and is allowe
d to use its facilities is not an employee absent a showing that the hospital
has control over the physician's work (e.g. diagnosing the patient's condition).
11. Calamba Medical Center vs NLRC
-->An employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the h
ospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which the phys
ician is to accomplish his task.
--> Employer-employee relationship exists between resident
physicians and training hospitals, unless (1) there is a training agreement betw
een them and (2) the training program is duly accredited or approved by the appr
opriate government agency.
--> For control test to apply, it is not essential for the employer to actually
supervise the performance of duties of the employee, it being enough that it has
the right to wield the power.
An evidence of the hospital's power of control over its employee physician is wh
en the latter's work is monitored through nursing supervisors, charge nurses and
orderlies.
If hospital maintained specific work-schedules for its physicians, which consist
ed of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight hours each week and which were strictl
y to be observed under pain of administrative sanctions, it is evidence of ER re
lationship.
12. Lopez vs Bodega City

--> ID and petty cash voucher showing receipt of allowance for 5 days are not en
ough to establish employment relationship absent showing of power of control ove
r the putative's employee's means and methods to perform his work.
"lady keeper" of Bodega City tasked with manning the club's ladies' comfort room
.
13. LAZARO vs SSS
-->Payment by commission does not preclude existence of Er-Ee relationship. When
control over the means and methods by which the employee performs his task is e
xercised, there is employment relationship.
14. SEMBLANTE vs CA
-->Masiador and sentenciador are not employees of a cockfight arena owner. In th
e conduct of their work, both relied mainly on their expertise that is characteri
stic of the cockfight gambling, and were never given by respondents any tool need
ed for the performance of their work.
-->Further, their compensation was paid out of the arriba (which is a percentage
deducted from the total bets), not by cockfight arena owner.
15. ESCASINAS vs SHANGRI-LA S MACTAN ISLAND
-->Article 286 of the Labor Code is not the yardstick for determining the existe
nce of an employment relationship; the
provision merely distinguishes between two (2) kinds of
employees, i.e., regular and casual.
-->Full-time nurses hired by an on-site retainer physician, despite their years
of service, are not the employees of the establishment being served by the physi
cian.
-->The term full-time in Art. 157* cannot be construed as referring to the type of
employment of the person engaged to provide the services, for Article 157 must
not be read alongside Art. 286 in order to vest employer-employee relationship o
n the employer and the person so engaged.
- The phrase services of a full-time registered nurse should thus be taken to refe
r to the kind of services that the nurse will render in the company s premises and
to its employees, not the manner of his engagement.
*ART. 157. Emergency medical and dental services.
It shall
be the duty of every employer to furnish his employees in any
locality with free medical and dental attendance and facilities
consisting of:
The services of a full-time registered nurse, a part-time physician and dentist,
and an emergency clinic, when the number of employees exceeds 200 but not more
than 300.
16. TONGKO vs. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO
-->Principal-agent relationship vs Er-Ee relationship
-->Doctrine: A contract of agency does not give rise to an employment relationsh
ip.
-->the Civil Code defines an agent as a person who binds himself to render some s
ervice or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the co

nsent or authority of the latter.


-->The Court takes judicial notice that as a matter of Insurance Code-based busi
ness practice, an agency relationship prevails in the insurance industry for the
purpose of selling insurance.
-->Generally, the determinative element is the control exercised over the one re
ndering service. The employer controls the employee both in the results and in t
he means and manner of
achieving this result. The principal in an agency relationship, on the other han
d, also has the prerogative to exercise control over the agent in undertaking th
e assigned task based on the parameters outlined in the pertinent laws.
17. Primo Caong vs Regualos
-->Jeepney drivers employed under the boundary system are employees. They are no
t mere lessees of the vehicles.
The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but only get the amount in
excess of the so-called "boundary" that they pay to the owner/operator is not su
fficient to negate the relationship between them as employer and employee.
18. ATOK BIG WEDGE CO. INC. vs GISON
-->Art 286 is not the yardstick for determining the existence of an employment r
elationship because it merely distinguishes between two kinds of employees for p
urposes of determining the
right of an employee to certain benefits, to join or form a union, or to securit
y of tenure; it does not apply where the existence of an employment relationship
is in dispute.
-->Temporary consultant that was repeatedly engaged to perform several tasks for
11 years is not an employee of the company engaging his services absent the pr
esence of control by the company over the means and methods by which he performs
his tasks.
It is, therefore, erroneous on the part of the Court of Appeals to rely on Artic
le 286 in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists.
19. BERNARTE vs PBA
-->A professional basketball referee is not an employee of the PBA, but an indep
endent contractor with unique skills.
-->The referees exercise their own independent judgment, based on the rules of t
he game, as to when and how a call or decision is to be made.
The PBA cannot control the performance of work of a referee without controlling
his acts of blowing the whistle and making calls.
20. Lirio vs Genovia
-->The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. It is not e
ssential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the
employee, as it is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the power.
Facts

- Genovia was initially hired as music studio manager by Lirio. No other personn
el was hired and he received additional payment as recording technician. It was
agreed that Lirio would help and teach Genovia how to use the studio equipment.
In their agreement, it was also stated that Lirio may check on the progress of G
enovia s work. Records of the case did not show Lirio do so.
Later on, he agreed with Lirio to compose songs for the latter's daugther in exc
hange for compensation once the album is released. Lirio said they entered into
a partnership with the agreement that Genovia shall receive a certain share in t
he profit of the album, but no document was produced.
But when the album was finished, Lirio dismissed Genovia upon disagreement on co
mpensation.
Ruling:
Lirio failed to prove that his relationship with respondent was one of partnersh
ip. Such claim was not supportedby any written agreement. It is a well-settled d
octrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and
theemployee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.
Further, there is an element of control in this case.
The power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. It is not esse
ntial for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the em
ployee, as it is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the power.
Petitioner certainly had the power to check on the progress and work of responde
nt as stated in hisPosition Paper and that it was agreed that he would help and
teach respondent how to use the studioequipment.
21. Jao vs BBC Products Salers
-->

You might also like