Arguments:

1. Power to Control
a) ATOK BIG WEDGE COMPANY, INC. v. JESUS P. GISON, G. R. NO. 169510, August 8,
2011, it provides:
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has
invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to
control the employee's conduct, or the so-called "control test." Of these four, the last
one is the most important. 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. Under the control test, an employer-employee
relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed
reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and
means to be used in reaching that end.
b) ROYALE HOMES MARKETING CORPORATION v. FIDEL P. ALCANTARA, G.R.
No. 195190, July 28, 2014,
Not every form of control is indicative of employer-employee relationship. A person
who performs work for another and is subjected to its rules, regulations, and code
of ethics does not necessarily become an employee. As long as the level of control
does not interfere with the means and methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks, the
rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party do not amount to the labor law
concept of control that is indicative of employer-employee relationship.
xxx xxx xxx
From jurisprudence, an important lesson that the first Insular Life case teaches us is
that a commitment to abide by the rules and regulations of an insurance company
does not ipso facto make the insurance agent an employee. Neither do guidelines
somehow restrictive of the insurance agents conduct necessarily indicate
"control" as this term is defined in jurisprudence. Guidelines indicative of labor law
"control," as the first Insular Life case tells us, should not merely relate to the mutually
desirable result intended by the contractual relationship; they must have the nature of
dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining the result, or of fixing the
methodology and of binding or restricting the party hired to the use of these means. In
fact, results-wise, the principal can impose production quotas and can determine how
many agents, with specific territories, ought to be employed to achieve the companys
objectives. These are management policy decisions that the labor law element of control
cannot reach.
c) SONZA v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 138051, June
10, 2004
The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an
employee from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of
control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and
control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee.
The converse holds true as well the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely
the worker is considered an independent contractor.
d) INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION AND MELECIO BASIAO, G.R. No. 84484, November 15, 1989

Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as
guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without
dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that
control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of
such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result, create no employeremployee relationship unlike the second, which address both the result and the
means used to achieve it.

e) AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC., v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION and EUTIQUIO BUSTAMANTE, G.R. No. 102199, January 28, 1997
To restate, the significant factor in determining the relationship of the parties is the
presence or absence of supervisory authority to control the method and the details of
performance of the service being rendered, and the degree to which the principal may
intervene to exercise such control. The presence of such power of control is indicative of
an employment relationship, while absence thereof is indicative of independent
contractorship. In other words, the test to determine the existence of independent
contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do
the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of the
employer except only as to the result of the work.
2. Exclusivity Provision
a) RAQUEL P. CONSULTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, PAMANA PHILIPPINES, INC., RAZUL
Z. REQUESTO, and ALETA TOLENTINO, G.R. No. 145443. March 18, 2005
The Exclusivity Provision
Consultas appointment had an exclusivity provision. The appointment provided that
Consulta must represent Pamana on an exclusive basis. She must not engage directly or
indirectly in activities of other companies that compete with the business of Pamana.
However, the fact that the appointment required Consulta to solicit business
exclusively for Pamana did not mean that Pamana exercised control over the means
and methods of Consultas work as the term control is understood in labor
jurisprudence. Neither did it make Consulta an employee of Pamana. Pamana did not
prohibit Consulta from engaging in any other business, or from being connected with
any other company, for as long as the business or company did not compete with
Pamanas business.
3. Consumption and Maintenance of the Service