AMWSLAI

vs.
NLRC, et. al
G.R. No. 111870 June 30, 1994
By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law
6/25/14 12:52:46 AM
Nature of the Case
An appeal on decision rendered by NLRC establishing employer-employee relationship.

Facts
Private-respondent was appointed legal counsel of AMWSLAI in 1980. The appointment was renewed for another three years through an
order dated 23 January 1987. Petitioner sent a reminder when the appointment was about to end, prompting the private respondent to lodge
a complaint before the labor arbiter for illegal dismissal and payment of separation benefits. Petitioner contested lack of jurisdiction by
reason that no employer-employee (E2e) existed between the private parties, but the same was denied, ruling that private-respondent was
legally dismissed and was not entitled to separation benefits being a managerial employee. Petitioner was however ordered to pay notarial
fees from 1997 to 1992, as well as 10% attorneys fees. Appeal affirmed this decision, and thus this petition.

Issue(s)
(1). Is private-respondent an employee of the petitioner?
Held
(1). Yes.

The question on E2e is anchored on the following elements: (1) selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of
wages; (3) power of dismissal; and (4) employer's own power to control employee's conduct. This is a question of fact and so is left
within the jurisdiction of the quasi-judicial agency.

The petitioner, having reserved the power of dismissal as it may deem necessary in the terms and conditions attached in the letter
dated 23 January 1987, paid private respondent on a monthly basis. The power of control was also evident in the definition of
private respondents duties and functions.

Lawyers can be hired as either in-house counsels or outside counsel, the former having the same classification as regular
employees would. Private respondent falls on the former category of lawyers, and thus, is an employee of petitioner.

However, the decision to award private-respondent notarial fees from 1987 to 1997 was incorrect. Although money claims are
within the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter, private-respondents award for his claim on notarial fees is not substantiated by proof. The
notarial services actually form part of his regular function, and thus already covered under his monthly compensation. Attorneys
fees is also disallowed.