SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY vs. HON.

FRANKLIN DRILON[193 SCRA 271]Facts: Singer Machine Collectors Union-Baguio filed a petition for directcertification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of SingerSewing Machine. The company opposed the petition mainly because the union 9members are not employees but independent contractors as evidenced by thecollection agency agreement which they signed.Med-Arbiter ruled that there exists an employeeemployer relationshipand granted the certification election which was affirmed by Sec. Drilon. Thecompany files the present petition on the determination of the relationship. Theunion insists that the provisions of the Collection Agreement belie the companysposition that the union members are independent contractors. Issue: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship betweenthe parties. SC Ruling: The present case calls for the application of the control test, which if notsatisfied, would lead to the conclusion that no employee-employer relationshipexists. If the union members are not employees, no right to organize for thepurpose of bargaining or as a bargaining agent cannot be recognized. The following elements are generally considered in the determination of the relationship: the selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal and the power to control the employees conductwhich is the most important element. The nature of the relationship between a company and its collectingagents depends on the circumstances of each particular relationship. Not allcollecting agents are employees and neither are all collecting agentsindependent contractors. The agreement confirms the status of the collectingagents as independent contractor. The requirement that collection agents utilizeonly receipt forms and report forms issued by the company and that reportsshall be submitted at least once a week is not necessarily an indication of controlover the means by which the job collection is to be performed. Even if reportrequirements are to be called control measures, any control is only with respectto the end result of the collection since the requirements regulate the things tobe done after the performance of the collection job or the rendition of service. The plain language of the agreement reveals that the designation ascollection agent does not create an employment relationship and that theapplicant is to be considered at all times as an independent contractor. The court finds that since private respondents are not employees of thecompany, they are not entitled to the constitutional right to form or join a labororganization for the purposes of collective bargaining. There is no constitutionaland legal basis for their union to be granted their petition for direct certification.

MANILA GOLF CLUB, INC. VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT[237 SCRA 207]Facts: This is originally filed with the Social Security Commission (SSC) viapetition of 17 persons who styled themselves as Caddies of Manila Golf and 10Country Club-PTCCEA for the coverage and availment of

benefits of the SocialSecurity Act as amended, PTCCEA (Philippine Technical, Clerical, CommercialEmployees Association) a labor organization where which they claim formembership. The same time two other proceedings were filed and pending. These arecertification election case filed by PTCCEA on behalf of the same caddies of Manila Golf and Country club which was in favor of the caddies and compulsoryarbitration case involving PTCCEA and Manila Golf and Country Club which wasdismissed and ruled that there was no employer-employee relationship betweenthe caddies and the club. Issue: Whether or not rendering caddying services for members of golf clubs andtheir guests in said clubs courses or premises are the employees of such clubsand therefore within the compulsory coverage of the Social Security System(SSS). SC Ruling: The Court does not agree that the facts logically point to the employer-employee relationship.In the very nature of things, caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within thepremises and grounds of whatever club they do work in. They work for the clubto which they attach themselves on sufferance but, on the other hand, alsowithout having to observe any working hours, free to leave anytime they please,to stay away for as long they like. These considerations clash frontally with the concept of employment. Itcan happen that a caddy who has rendered services to a player on one day maystill find sufficient time to work elsewhere. Under such circumstances, the caddymay leave the premises and to go to such other place of work that he wishes. These are things beyond the control of the petitioner. The caddy (LLamar) is not an employee of petitioner Manila Golf andCountry Club and the petitioner is under no obligation to report him forcompulsory coverage of SSS.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (Philippines), INC. vs. NLRC[264 SCRA 4] Facts: Limjoco was a Sales Divison of Encyclopaedia Britannica and was incharge of selling the products through some sales representatives. Ascompensation, he would receive commissions from the products sold by hisagents. He was also allowed to use the petitioners name, goodwill and logo. Itwas agreed that office expenses would be deducted from Limjocoscommissions.In 1974, Limjoco resigned to pursue his private business and filed acomplaint against petitioner for alleged non-payment of separation pay andother benefits and also illegal deduction from sales commissions. Petitioneralleged that Limjoco was not an employee of the company but an independentdealer authorized to promote and sell its products and in return, receivedcommissions therein. Petitioner also claims that it had no control and supervisionover the complainant as to the manners and means he conducted his businessoperations. Limjoco maintained otherwise. He alleged he was hired by thepetitioner and was assigned in the sales department. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Limjoco was an employee of the company.NLRC also affirmed

the decision and opined that there was no evidencesupporting allegation that Limjoco was an independent contractor or dealer. Issue: Whether or not there was an employee-employer relationship between theparties. SC Ruling: There was no employee-employer relationship. In determining therelationship, the following elements must be present: selection and engagementof the employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal and power to control theemployees conduct. The power of control is commonly regarded as the mostcrucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employee-employer relationship. Under the control test, an employee-employerrelationship exists where the person for whom the services are performedreserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the mannerand means to be employed in reaching that end. The issuance of guidelines by the petitioner was merely guidelines oncompany policies which sales managers follow and impose on their respectiveagents. Limjoco was not an employee of the company since he had the free reinin the means and methods for conducting the marketing operations. He wasmerely an agent or an independent dealer of the petitioner. He was free toconduct his work and he was free to engage in other means of livelihood.In ascertaining the employee-employer relationship, the factualcircumstances must be considered. The element of control is absent where aperson who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and isnot subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and in turn is compensated in 12according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof. Hence, therewas no employee-employer relationship