RIZALTECHNOLOGICALUNIVERSITY

Cities of Mandaluyong and Pasig

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Department of Psychology

CASE ANALYSIS
CASES
1. Manila Golf & Country Club vs. IAC (237 SCRA 207)
2. Ramos vs. CA (380 SCRA 467)
3. Tongko vs. Manulife GR No. 167622 January 25, 2011
4. Fulache vs. ABS-CBN January 21, 2010
5. ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno September 26, 2006
6. Villamaria vs. CA April 2006
7. Television and Production Components vs. Servana, GR 167648, January 28, 2008
8. Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Co. vs. Carol De Readt GR 161366 July 16, 2009
9. Manila Water Co., Inc. vs. Jose Dalumpines GR 175501 October 4, 2010
10. Corazon Almirez vs. Infinite Loop Tech GR 162401 January 31, 2016

Tumaliuan, Mark L.
CAS-06-502A

Case Parties Citation Is there an Employer-Employee Supreme Court Ruling

Relationship?
Manila Golf and Between the G.R. No. 64948 No, there is no Employer-Employee The Supreme Court reversed and set
Country Club, Golf Club and September 27, relationship existing between the petitioner aside the decision of the Intermediate
Inc. vs. the Caddies 1994 Manila Golf and Country Club, Inc. and the Appellant court in favor of the
 Intermediate respondent IAC and Fermin Llamar due to the petitioner Manila Golf and Country
Appellate Court following premises: Club, Inc. due to the following
and Fermin 1. As for the selection and engagement- grounds:
Llamar. the caddies are employees of the golf 1. The appeal was taken from the
club members and guest players due to Resolution to the IAC and
the fact that caddies works on his after some months of decision,
accordance with the promulgated rules it was reached and
and regulations on the assignment, promulgated that Raymundo
deportment and conduct of the caddies Jomok's appeal was dismissed
set by the petitioners club, as admitted at his instance, leaving Fermin
by one the petitioner, Fermin Llamar. Llamar the lone appellant due
Furthermore, the Golf Club members to the records, testimonies and
and guest players has the liberty to agreement between the Golf
choose a caddy of their own preference Club and Caddies.
regardless of the Golf Club rotation 2. The Intermediate Appellant
system and has the discretion to pay or Court deemed of title or no
not to pay the chosen caddy. This moment due to the fact that
entails that the petitioners club were the caddies were paid by the
not the subject to the direction and Golf Club members and guest
control of the caddies, in which the players, not by the Club, and
respondents are accounted in what observe not the define
manner they performed their work. working hours and no fixed
2. As for the payment of wages- In income. Furthermore, the
accordance in the Management Court agrees with petitioner
Agreement the caddies are paid by the for the rotation system, which
Golf Club members and guest players, gives an assurance that the
 in which were they rendered their work is fairly distributed and
services. As stated by Fermin Llamar, the caddy who is absent
the caddies are paid depends on the simply losing his/her term to
number of players engaging their serve and being assigned for
services and liberality of the latter. the last number for the day.
3. As for the power to control the means 3. The Intermediate Appellant
and methods by which the work is to Court decided to reversed and
be accomplished- The promulgated set aside the Motion for
rules and regulations for assignment, Reconsideration of the
deportation and conduct of the caddies respondent, Fermin Llamar,
is to impose personal discipline which declared that the Manila Golf
does not direct the actual manner of and Country Club is no under
work. Also, the club members and obligation to report him for
guest players have the liberty to choose the compulsory coverage of
the caddies services and income. the Social Security System,
Furthermore, the caddies are not therefore that there is no
required to rendered number of hours pronouncement as to costs and
of works on a single day and has the the respondent is not an
liberty to leave the premises and go to employee of the petitioner.
other places or work they wish. In
addition, the caddy may choose to
absent himself in the golf club to
attend to a more profitable caddying on
the particular day. This indicates that
the Golf Club does not control the
means and methods of the work to be
 accomplished of the caddies.
Ramos vs. CA Between the G.R. No. 124354 No, there is no Employer-Employee The Supreme Court affirmed the
Doctors and April 11, 2002 relationship existing between the respondents decision of the Court of Appeals in
Hospital (De los De Los Santos Medical Center, Dr. Orlino favor of the respondent De Los Santos
Santos Medical Hosaka and Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez due to the Medical Center and gainsaid the
Center) following grounds: decision of the Court of Appeals in
1. As for the selection, engagement, and favor of the respondents Dr. Orlino
power of dismissal- the consultants, Hosaka and Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez on
Dr. Hosaka and Dr. Perfecta are the following grounds:
technically not employees. The 1. Dr. Hosaka and Dr. Gutierrez
selection and engagement of services being consultants in the
is exercised by the Credentials respondent hospital do not
Committee. The said committee is qualify for the employer-
composed of the heads of the various employee relationship. The
specialty departments. The hospital consultants are governed by an
administrator acts as an ex-officio member independent body composed
of the committee. The acceptance,
of the heads of different
rejection, disciplinary, and dismissal is in
specialty departments. In
the committee’s jurisdiction.
addition, it is the patients who
2. As for the payment of service, it is the
pay for the services of the
petitioner who pays the consultant for its
consultants and not the
service and not the respondent Hospital.
hospital. The respondent
hospital only accredits the
respondent doctors and grants
the privilege of having clinics
inside the hospital. Thus, the
 Supreme Court’s decision
favors the respondent hospital
and absolves De Los Santos
Medical Center from liability.
2. Negligence on the part of Dr.
Gutierrez in performing
intubation to the petitioner is
proven in the words uttered by
the respondent itself, “ang
hirap ma-intubate nito, mali
yata ang pagkakapasok. O
lumalaki ang tiyan.”. It was
further supported by the
discoloration of petitioner
Erlinda’s nailbeds on her left
hand. In the case of Dr.
Hosaka on the other hand,
infliction of anxiety to the
patient caused by three (3)
hours of waiting time on the
operating table is enough to
deny the claim of Dr. Hosaka
that he is free from blame.
Anxiety, according to Dr.
Camagay, “causes the
outpouring of adrenaline which
 in turn results in high blood
pressure or disturbances in the
heart rhythm”. He continued,
“Dr. Hosaka's irresponsible
conduct of arriving very late for
the scheduled operation of
petitioner Erlinda is violative,
not only of his duty as a
physician "to serve the interest of
his patients with the greatest
solicitude, giving them always
his best talent and skill,"[44] but
also of Article 19 of the Civil
Code which requires a person, in
the performance of his duties, to
act with justice and give
everyone his due.”. The Supreme
Court declared Dr. Hosaka and
Dr. Gutierrez liable for the injury
endured by the petitioner Erlinda.
Tongko vs. Between the GR No. 167722 There is no Employer-Employee relationship The Supreme Court DENIED the
Manufacturer Insurance Agent January 25, 2011 existing between the petitioner Gregorio V. petition and affirmed the decision of
Life Insurance and Insurance Tongko and the respondent Manulife Co. the Court of Appeals in favor of the
Co. (Phils), Inc. Company (Phils), Inc. due to the following grounds: respondent Manulife Co. (Phils), Inc.
1. As for the engagement, selection and due to the following premises:
control of the employee- The existing 1. The evidenced of the
agreement started in 1977 between the agreement that governed the
petitioner and respondent by the virtue relationship between the
 of Career Agent’s Agreement up until Manulife and the petitioner
the termination of it- this state that has no Employer-Employee
Tongko understood and agreed that he relationship. Also, it indicates
is an independent contractor and that the company has no
nothing contained here is interpreted as evidence of labor control on
creating an employer- employee the insurance agent and the
relationship between the company and arrangements, titles and
the agent. As indicated in the position invested did not
agreement, the agent shall act in change the status of an
accordance with the instructions of the insurance agent based on the
principal as stated in the Article 1887 agreement and the Labor Law
of the Civil Code regarding the of the company. Furthermore.
objectives and sales target of Manulife, The Manulife exercise the
training and engagement of the power to assign and remove
applicants, other products of the under the supervision of the
company, and to the other agents of the insurance agent with its role
insurance agency, in which it entails keeping the agency
that it is the responsibility and duty of relationship as the principal.
Tongko as an insurance agent as set on 2. As shown in the records and
the parameters set by the law which Annual Income Tax Returns ,
permitted by the company, whose Tongko is well compensated
commissions he shared. by the company, which the led
2. As for the earning of Tongko, it is to This Court (and all
stated is his declaration and adjudicators for that matter)
representation of his annual income tax cannot and should not fill in
returns that Tongko is amply paid for the evidentiary gaps in a
 his services as an insurance agent, party's case that the party
based on the Official receipt issued by failed to support; we cannot
the company. It entails that there is no and should not take the
inequality or unjust situation since the cudgels for any party. To
agent is earning above the sums an support this argument, it is
employee and due to the insufficient stated in the Constitution and
substantial evidence required to the Civil Code, using the
support the he’s a Manulife employee. principles and provisions that
3. As for the power of dismissal- “The mandate of the Court, of
Manulife comply with requirement for course, is to decide cases
lawful dismissal or termination of the based on the facts and the
employee due to the gross law, and not to base its
disobedience of the lawful orders of conclusions on fundamental
the company and Tongko the insurance precepts that are far removed
agent, violated the separation, which is from the particular case
under the Career Agent’s Agreement presented before it. When
between the compsny and the agent. there is no room for their
application, of capacity of
principles, reliance on the
application of these
fundamental principles is
misplaced.
3. The company may terminate
the agreement in case of any
breach or violation of any of
the provisions of the agent by
 giving a written notice for
within fifteen (15) days of
discovery of the violation.
Furthermore, the previous
failure of the agent will not
give meaning to the
termination of the agreement
of the company between the
agent. This indicates that the
company has an indirect
relationship to the agent, in
which the power to dismiss
the employee is within the
agency, which is the employer
of the employee. Also, the
agent may likewise terminate
the agreement at any time
without cause, by giving a
written notice to the company
fifteen (15) days’ notice.
Fulache Vs. Between the G.R. No. 183810 Yes, there is an Employer-Employee The Supreme Court GRANT the
ABS-CBN Workers and the January 21, 2010 relationship existing between the petitioners, decision of the court of Appeals in
Broadcasting Broadcasting Farley Fulache, Manolo Jabonero, David favor of the petitioners Fulache,
Corporation Corporation Castillo, Jeffrey Lagunzad, Magdalena Malig- Manolo Jabonero, David Castillo,
On Bigno, Francisco Cabas, Jr., Harvey Ponce Jeffrey Lagunzad, Magdalena Malig-
and Alan C. Almendras and the respondent On Bigno, Francisco Cabas, Jr.,
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation due to Harvey Ponce and Alan C. Almendras
the following grounds: due to the following premises:
1. As for the selection and engagement- 1. The Court GRANT the
under the Article 281 of the Labor petitioners whereby
Code in the Philippines, the confirming that Fulache,
probationary employment shall be six Manolo Jabonero, David
(6) months and counted as the Castillo, Jeffrey Lagunzad,
employee started working. Of the Magdalena Malig-On Bigno,
employment is not terminated after the Francisco Cabas, Jr., Harvey
probationary employment, it shall then Ponce and Alan C. Almendras
considered as a regular employment. In are regular employees of the
the case of ABS-CBN Broadcasting ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation and the petitioner, it is Corporation.
clearly seen that the respondent 2. In accordance to the existing
violated the probationary employment, company practices and Labor
in which the petitioners rendered more Code the petitioners are
than years of service in the respondent. entitled to rights, benefits and
Furthermore, the petitioners are privileges and including CBA
members of the Collective Bargaining benefits from the time they
Agreement and does not belong on the became regular employees of
excluded categories, in which they are the respondent, as declared by
regular rank-and-file employees of the the decision of the court.
ABS-CBN Corporation. 3. The ABS-CBN Broadcasting
2. As for the wages- the petitioners are Corporation is ordered to
paid on a monthly basis and not on the immediately reinstate the
services they rendered, which entails petitioners to their former
 that they are not contractual employee. positions without loss of
As declared in the Collective seniority rights with all other
Bargaining Agreement the petitioners monetary benefits and full
are entitled to be paid overtime, night backwages from the time the
shift differential, 13 month pay, cash petitioners were dismissed up
conversion and vacation leaves, to the time of their actual
educational and service awards, and reinstatement.
medical and dental allowance as stated
in the benefits of the agreement as a
regular employee.
3. As for the power of dismissal- the
company dismissed the petitioners in
an illegal and attended by bad faith
cause, which it is under highly
questionable circumstances. Also, the
redundancy as authorized cause for
dismissal that claimed by the
respondents implies that the petitioners
were regular employees of the
corporation as defined under the Labor
Code that the termination of the
petitioners can only be impose if the
cause is just and authorized.
4. As for the power to control the means
and methods by which the work is to
be accomplished- the contracted
persons or so called “talents” of the
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
are regular employees, as stated in the
Labor Code and its related laws, due to
the fact that the company exercise
control over on the talents performance
of their work in which they perform
activities in the desire of the
corporations’ trade or business.
Furthermore, they petitioners are
required to do render their work in the
accordance of the corporation’s
schedule Also, as claim by the
petitioners that they work as assistants
in the production of the new programs
broadcast daily, driver to the news
team, shoot scenes and events with the
used of the equipment owned by the
corporation, editor /teleprompter
operator, and production assistant and
operator of the VTR machine recorder.
This shows that the company have
control on the means and methods of
the work to be accomplished and
cannot be considered as contractual
employee.
 ABS-CBN Between G.R. No. 164156 Yes, there is an Employer-Employee The Supreme Court Denied the
Broadcasting Broadcasting September 26, relationship existing between the petitioners petition and Affirmed the decision of
Corporation vs. Corporation and 2006 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation and the the Court of Appeals in favor of the
Nazareno Personal respondents Marlyn Nazareno, Merlou respondents Marlyn Nazareno,
Assistants Gerzon, Jennifer Deiparine, and Josephine Merlou Gerzon, Jennifer Deiparine,
Lerasan due to the following grounds: And Josephine Lerasan due to the
1. As for the employment and following premises:
engagement- the respondents are 1. The respondents are entitled
working for the petitioner for more and declared that they are
than five (5) years and working as a regular employees of the
Personal Assistants under different petitioner. Also, they are
managers. Also, no peculiar or unique awarded monetary benefits
skills, talents or celebrity status was and entitled to the benefits
required from them because they were under the Collective
merely hired through petitioner’s Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
personnel department just like any due to the contribution to the
ordinary employee. Furthermore, as in profits of petitioner’s business
accordance on the Article 280 of the through their rendered labor
Labor Code, it states that where a and services. In addition, plus
person rendered at least a year of the 10% percent Attorney’s
service, he/she is considered a regular Fees.
employee regardless of the nature of 2. As stated in the Collective
the activity performed, or where the Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
work continuous or intermittent, as the respondents are regular
long the work exist, the reason being a employees and not mere
 customary appointment is not project employees, in which
indispensable before the formal the determinants of the
declaration of the regular status is employees relationship on the
attained. Moreover, respondents particular business or trade of
cannot be subject as “Talents” due to the employer is based on the
the fact that they are not actor and nature of the activities
actresses or radio specialist or mere performed by such employees.
clerks or utility employees, in which
they perform several duties under the
control and direction of the ABS-CBN
executives and supervisor.
Additionally, the respondents cannot
be considered as project or program
employee due to no sufficient evidence
that was presented to indicate that the
duration and scope of the project were
determined specified at the time of
their engagement.
2. As for the wages- the income or so-
called “talent fees” of the respondents
corresponds to the wages given as a
result of the employer-employee
relationship. Also, the respondents did
not have to power to bargain for a huge
amount of talent fees, which negates
the circumstances of being an
 independent contractual relationship.
Furthermore, the monthly salary rate of
Four Thousand (P4, 000.00) for each
respondents, in which it is clearly
shown that the respondents are
underpaid and did not receive holiday
pay, premium pay, service incentive
pay, sick leave pay, and 13 month pay.
3. As for the power of dismissal- the
petitioners could always terminate or
discharge respondents if it their work
unsatisfactory and the respondent is
highly dependent on the petitioner for
continued work.
4. As for the power to control the means
and methods by which the work is to
be accomplished- the petitioner
controls and supervise the respondents,
in which negates the allegation that the
respondents are independent
contractors. Furthermore, the petitioner
assigned the schedules and other
assignments of the Personal Assistants,
in which they are required to rendered
minimum of eight (8) hours a day,
including the Sunday and holidays.
 Also, the following are the tasks and
duties that they were made to perform:
a) Prepare, arrange airing of
commercial broadcasting based on the
daily operations log and digicart of
respondent ABS-CBN;
b) Coordinate, arrange personalities
for air interviews;
c) Coordinate, prepare schedule of
reporters for scheduled news reporting
and lead-in or incoming reports;
d) Facilitate, prepare and arrange
airtime schedule for public service
announcement and complaints;
e) Assist, anchor program interview,
etc; and
f) Record, log clerical reports, man-
based control radio.
Villamaria vc. CA Between the G.R. No. 165881 There is no Employer-Employee relationship The Supreme Court affirmed the
Operator and the April 19, 2006 existing between the petitioner Oscar decision of the Court of Appeals in
Driver Villamaria, Jr. and the respondent Jerry V. favor of the petitioner Oscar
Bustamante due to the following premises: Villamaria, Jr. due to the following
1. As for the wages- the income of the grounds:
respondent is based on the excess of 1. The "Boundary-Hulog"
the “boundary” given to operator as the system is part of the
daily remittance, which pertains to his Kasunduan. Where, dual
 daily earning as his daily wage. Also, judicial relationship was
the remittance had a dual purpose were created between the
it serves as the boundary and respondent and the petitioner,
respondent partial payment for the which is the relationship
jeepney unit. between the vendor vendor
2. As for the dismissal- as stipulated and the employer-employee.
under the terms and conditions of the Whereby, the agreement did
Kasunduan between the vendor and the not extinguish the employer-
vendee, which is shown on the courses employee relationship
of action of the respondent that he between the parties that
clearly violated the agreement due to existed prior to the execution
the fact that the unit is being used in a of the said seed. The current
non-commercial transportation relationship between the
business without permission of the applicant and the respondent
petitioner, abandoned the unit in a depends not on the payment
gasoline station for two (2) weeks, of the respondent, but on the
confiscated license plate due to the presence and absence of
accident, missing unit parts and power to control the means
ignoring the “Paalala” of the petitioner. and methods to accomplished
Also, as stated in the Kasunduan no. the work, in which the salary
13 “Na kung ang TAUHAN NG of the respondent is equivalent
IKALAWANG PANIG ay hindi to the excess of the
makapagbigay ng BOUNDARY “boundary-hulog” and the fact
HULOG sa loob ng isang linggo ay that the power of dismissal is
NANGANGAHULUGAN na ang not implied in the Kasunduan
kasunduang ito ay wala ng bisa at did not mean that the
 kusang ibabalik ng TAUHAN NG respondent was never able to
IKALAWANG PANIG ang nasabing exercise or exercise such
sasakyan sa TAUHAN NG UNANG power.
PANIG na wala ng paghahabol pa.”. 2. As specified by the Labor
This indicates that failure to comply to Arbiter and the NLRC to have
the daily remittances of P550.00 as jurisdictions in accordance to
“boundary hulog” for one week or Article 217 of the Labor Code
longer, may considered an additional it is limited to conflicts arising
cause of the termination. This entails from an employer-employee
that the termination if the respondent is relationship that can be
lawful or just cause. resolved only by reference to
3. As for the power to control the means the Labor Code and other
and methods by which the work is to labor statues of their collective
be accomplished- under the boundary bargaining agreement.
system, the owner/operator, which is
the petitioner exercise the control and
supervision over the respondent, in
which the operator must ensure that
driver follows the route prescribe in
the franchising and regulatory
authority and promulgated rules
regarding the business operation.
Furthermore, the contract to sell the
jeepney unit between the vendor and
the vendee stated that the unit can be
paid through daily installment basis of
 P550.00 payable for four (4) years and
that the respondent would thereafter
become its owner, in which the
petitioner retained the ownership of
unit the respondent fully purchase the
price stipulated. Also, the boundary-
hulog scheme, indicates that the
ownership of the unit is still on the
petitioner, but the material possession
is vested in the respondent as its driver.
This entails that the petitioner’s rules
and regulation are only used to oversee
the material possession to oblige the
respondents to follow the contract and
does not have a total control on
respondent.

Television and Between the G.R. NO. 167648 Yes, there is an Employer-Employee The Supreme Court affirmed the
Production Television and January 28, 2008 relationship existing between the petitioner decision of the Court of Appeals in
Exponents, Inc. Production Television and Production Exponents and favor of the respondent Mr. Roberto
and/or Antonio P. Exponents, Inc. respondent Roberto C. Servaña as indicated: C. Servaña due to the following
Tuviera v. and Company 1. As for the selection and engagement, grounds:
Roberto C. Guards Mr. Servaña, the respondent, was 1. The Supreme Court believes
Servaña, assigned by his former employer, that granting the respondent
Agro-Commercial Security Agency to the liability to pay the
give assistance to TAPE in its live petitioner the payment of
 productions. According to TAPE, they indemnity in the form of
“retained as client” the respondent nominal damages would serve
when his service to his former to deter employers from future
employer ended. Mr. Servaña violation of the statutory due
presented his identification card as process rights of the
evidence. An identification card, in a employees which was stated
business establishment is provided not as a fundamental right of the
to only ensure security but also as an employees under the Labor
identifying factor that the holder is an Code and its IRR. The court
employee. furthers expressed that it is
2. As for the payment of service, the rightful to order the petitioner
respondent has been receiving his a fixed payment of
monthly salary that amounts to P10,000.00.
P5,444.44 from TAPE. Wages, as 2. With regards to Mr. Tuviera,
defined in the Labor Code, are president of TAPE, the
remuneration or earnings, however Supreme Court decided it
designated, capable of being expressed unnecessary to render from
in terms of money, whether fixed or any liability as he showed no
ascertained on a time, task, piece or act of malice or bad faith in
commission basis, or other method of dismissing the respondent.
calculating the same, which is payable The Supreme Court further
by an employer to an employee under modified the Court of
a written or unwritten contract of Appeals’ decision, and added
employment for work done or to be that he cannot be held
done, or for service rendered or to be accountable with TAPE.
rendered. This is inarguably equivalent
 to the monthly compensation for the
service of the respondent.

3. As for the dismissal, the issuance of a

memorandum provided by the
petitioner telling the respondent of his
discontinuance from service prove that
the petitioner , TAPE, possessed the
power to dismiss.
Sycip, Gorres, Between an G.R. NO. 161366 There is no Employer-Employee relationship The Supreme Court GRANT the
Velayo and Independent June 16, 2009 existing between the petitioners Sycip, Gorres, petition and SET ASIDE the decision
Company vs. Contractor and a Velayo and Company and the respondent of the Court of Appeals and
Carol De Raedt Company Carol De Raedt due to the following premises: REISNTATE the decision of the
1. The was no discretion acted by the National Labor Relations
Sycip, Gorres, Velayo and Company Commission, which favors the
(SGV) upon selecting De Raedt for her petitioners Sycip, Gorres, Velayo and
assignment as Sociologist of Central Company due to the following
Cordilllera Agricultural Programme premises:
(CECAP) project. The selection was 1. SGV had no discretion in
made by the Travers Morgan selecting De Raedt as the
International Ltd. (TMI) upon Sociologist of the foreign-
recommendation of Thomas Gimenez assisted CECAP project. The
of the Department of Agriculture (DA) selection was acted by the
and approved by the DA and the TMI which was later approved
commission. by the DA and the
2. The SGV’s billings to TMI for the commission. Thus, De Raedt
 professional fee of De Raedt clearly was never employed by the
show that the funds were provided by SGV as an ordinary employee,
and from the TMI. nor was she picked from a
3. As for the dismissal- The dismissal of pool of consultants already
De Raedt was exercised and directed working for the SGV. Only
by the TMI, only the SGV the SGV engaged the services
implemented the instructions to of De Raedt through the
withdraw De Raedt. existing Sub-Consultancy
4. The SGV did not exercise control over Agreement with the TMI.
De Raedt’s work. There was a Sub- 2. The Supreme Court noted that
Consultancy Agreement between TMI the professional fees of De
and SGV which required De Raedt to Raedt paid by the SGV were
work under the direction and from its client, TMI.
supervision of both the Team Leader Furthermore, by the terms
and the Project Coordinator. indicated on the Sub-
5. The mere participation of SGV was to Consultancy Agreement, De
monitor De Raedt’s attendance, and for Raedt was presumed aware of
the payment of professional fee and the source of the funds of her
validate De Raedt’s time spent in the professional fees. The
project with her written reports. privileges De Raedt’s received
6. Furthermore, the following are not commonly given to
circumstances indicated that no ordinary employees, under
employer-employment relationship labor laws.
existed between the parties: 3. The letter-agreement between
(1) De Raedt was engaged in a contract the parties indicated that SGV
basis; may terminate De Raedt’s
(2) the letter-agreement between the services at any time that the
parties clearly states that there is no contract between the
employer-employee relationship Department of Agriculture –
between the parties and that De Raedt Government of the
was at all times to be considered an Philippines and Travers
independent contractor; and Morgan International,
(3) De Raedt was allowed to engage in Consulting Engineers,
other employment during all the time Planners and Management
she was connected with the project. Consultants is terminated for
any cause whatsoever.” On
the other hand, De Raedt has
failed to show that SGV could
terminate her services. The
parties’ agreement also
indicated that De Raedt shall
leave the project for whatever
reason that prevents her from
performing her duties and
required services. Thus, the
Supreme Court decided that
De Raedt shall is liable for
breach of contract. This pre-
termination with penalty
clause discloses that there is
no employment relationship
between the parties. Besides, it
 was the TMI who instructed
the termination of De Raedt,
SGV on the other hand had no
choice but to comply with the
directive of its client.
4. The letter agreement between
the parties clearly show that
SGV did not exercise control
over the works of De Raedt on
the CECAP project. The
letter-agreement indicates the
requirement of De Raedt to
maintain an accurate time
record, notify SGV of the
delays of her work schedule,
secure a prior clearance to
leave place of assignment, and
prepare reports. Thus, the
SGV assumed that they would
be updated regularly on the
work progress of De Raedt, on
the project for which she was
specifically engaged. The
Supreme Court reinstated that
there was no employer-
employee relationship existed
 between the parties. De Raedt
was deemed at all times as
independent contractor
rendering services to the
SGV’s client, TMI.
Manila Water Between the Bill G.R. No. 175501 Yes, there is an Employer-Employee The Supreme Court Denied the
Co., Inc. vs. Jose Collectors and October 4, 2010 relationship existing between the petitioners petition and Affirmed the decision of
Dalumpines the Water Manila Water Co., Inc. and the respondent Bill the Court of Appeals in favor of the
Company Collectors due to the following grounds: respondent Bill Collectors due to the
1. As for the selection and engagement- following premises:
the respondents are absorb employees
1. The Court declared that the
of the petitioner due to the Republic
respondent bill collectors are
Act No. 8401, otherwise known as the
employees of the petitioner,
“National Water Crisis of 1895”, in
due to the presence of the
which the Metropolitan Waterworks
employer- employee
and Sewerage (MWSS) was given the
relationship. Furthermore, the
authority to enter to an agreement with
dismissal or termination of the
the private sector allowing its
respondent is considered
operation. Also, the individual
illegal ordering the petitioner
respondents signed a three (3)-month
to pay the respondent bill
contract to perform collection service
collectors separation pay
on commission basis under the east
equivalent to one (1) month
zone branches of the Manila Water.
for every year of service and
Furthermore, the respondents are part
liable to pay ten percent (10%)
of the "Association Collector’s Group,
of the total amount awarded as
Inc." (ACGI), which provides
 collection services only for the Balara
attorney’s fees.
Branch of the Petitioner and transfer
2. The tasks performed by the
under the First Classic Courier
respondent collectors are
Services, Inc. (FCSI). This entails that
directly related to the principal
the respondent bill collectos were
business or trade of the
individually hired by the contractor but
petitioner, which entails that
were under the direct control and
the payments of the customers
supervision of the petitioner, in which
are the lifeblood of the
they suffered injustice in the work set-
company, and the respondent
up impose by the Manila Waters that
bill collectors are the ones
caused them to be emotionally
who collect these payments,
distressed were they forced to join
this means that the work of the
FCCSI to retain their employment.
respondent bill collectors are
2. As for the wages- the income of the
essential to the petitioner’s
respondents is purely dependent on the
trade or business.
wages they earned from the petitioner,
3. The control test in the
which was term by the respondents as
relationship between the
“commissions”.
FCSSI and respondent bill
3. As for the power of dismissal- the
collectors indicates the
petitioner illegally dismissed or
existence of the right to
terminated the respondent bill
control and not necessarily the
collectors employment due to the
existence thereof. Where, it is
contract between FCCSI is no longer
not essential for the employer
renewed by the Manila Water, which
to actually supervise the
decided to implement a “collectorless”
employee performance duties.
scheme whereby the customers of the
 petitioner wound instead remit their
Therefore, it is enough that the
payments through “Bayad Centers”.
employer has a right to wield
4. As for the power to control the means
the power over the employee.
and methods by which the work is to
be accomplished- in the existence of
the Labor Only Contracting between
the FCCSI and the petitioner, in which
the respondent bill collectors is hired
by the contractor, which is the FCCSI
but the supervision and control is
vested upon the petitioner, which is the
Manila Waters. This entails that the
respondent bill collectors were made to
perform by the petitioner the following
circumstances:
(a) respondent bill collectors reported
daily to the branch offices of Manila
Water to remit their collections with
the specified monthly targets and
comply with the collection reporting
procedures prescribed by the latter;
(b) respondent bill collectors, except
for Pamoraga and Zapatero, were
among the 121 collectors who
incorporated ACGI;
(c) Manila Water continued to pay
 their wages in the form of commissions
even after the employees alleged
transfer to FCCSI. Manila Water paid
the respondent bill collectors their
individual commissions, and the lump
sum paid by Manila Water to FCCSI
merely represented the agency fee;
and
(d) the certification or individual
clearances issued by Manila Water to
respondent bill collectors upon the
termination of the service contract
with FCCSI.
Corazon Between the G.R. NO. 162401 No, there is no Employer-Employee The Supreme Court affirmed the
Almirez v. Infinit Employee and January 31, 2006 relationship existing between the petitioner decision of the Court of Appeals in
e Loop its Company Corazon Almirez and the respondent Infinite favor of the respondent Infinite Loop
Technology Loop Technology Corporation, Edwin R. Technology Corporation due to the
Corporation, Rabino due to the following grounds: following grounds:
Edwin R. Rabino 1. As for the selection, engagement, and 1. The existing conditions that
and Court of power of dismissal- The service of the govern the petitioner and the
Appeals petitioner commenced in October 18, respondent implied that there
1997 by the virtue of the Acceptance is no existing Employer-
of Professional Services which was Employee relationship.
elaborated in the Terms and Moreover, the said agreement
Conditions. The same conditions, also inconvertibly described that
stated in the Scope of Professional the company, Infinite Loop
 Services, no. 9, “Continue related Technology Corporation, has
works when the construction stage of no power to control the means
this Proposed Refinery will push and methods the petitioner
through.”, the service agreement was utilizes to accomplish a certain
co-terminous with the project. The service.
project was unable to materialize 2. The collected records of pay
resulting to the separation from slips and cash vouchers were
service. not enough to prove the
2. As for the payment of service, the existence of Employer-
deduction made from Almirez’ pay Employee relationship.
indicating SSS premiums, Philhealth Furthermore, the petitioner’s
contributions and withholding tax, was argument regarding the
in the form of pay slip and cash deductions from petitioner's
vouchers which cannot prove the remuneration for the purpose
existence of an employer-employee of SSS, Philhealth
relationship. contributions and withholding
3. As for the power to control, it is tax , according to the Court,
indicated in the Scope of Professional should not be compared to the
Services, no.6, “Make reports and cases of Equitable Banking
recommendations to the company Corp. v. NLRC18 and
management team regarding work Nagusara v. NLRC19 for the
progress, revisions and improvement reason that the employers in
of process design on a regular basis as these two cases also registered
required by company management and declared the complainants
team.”, this does not give the company with the SSS and Medicare
the control over the means of her (Philhealth) as their
 performance employees.
3. The agreement also gave the
company the right to dismiss
the service agreement in case
the project did not materialize.
This, in addition to earlier
stated grounds, solidifies the
absence of Employer-
Employee relationship as the
agreement between the parties
is accompanied by the
project’s progression.
4. Therefore, the lack of merit
caused the Court to deny the
petition and favored the
respondents.

REFERENCES
https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52538%3Agr-161366-2009&catid=1519&Itemid=566
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_175501_2010.html

https://www.digest.ph/decisions/tongko-vs-life-1

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_165881_2006.html

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2008/jan2008/gr_167648_2008.php

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006januarydecisions.php?id=91

https://www.digest.ph/decisions/ramos-vs-ca-16

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_164156_2006.html

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_183810_2010.html

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1994/sep1994/gr_64948_1994.php