What Constitutes and Employee- Employer Relationship

Case
1) LVN Pictures vs

Facts

Phil Musicians Guild

Held - Rational
LV is engaged in the making of

motion pictures

The film producer chooses the

musical director

The musicians are summoned

There is an employee- employer

Control test

relationship

Work is essential

The motion director supervises the

to the nature of

recording of the musicians- control

the business

Control test: The right to control not

through call slips by the company,

only the end to be achieved but also

picked up by trucks and given meals

the manner and means to be used in

The motion director supervises the

reaching the end

recording of the musicians

Main point

The work is an integral part of the

entire motion picture

2) Dy Keh Beng vs

International Labor

Solano and Tudla worked as basket

weavers on the pakyaw system

The control test

relationship

calls merely for

Their work on the establishment was

the right to

employees because they came to

continuous although they were

control the

the establishment only when there

compensated on a per piece basis

manner of doing

It is natural to expect that those

work, not the

Dy Keh Beng contends he did not

working under Dy would have to

the actual

meet the control test because there

observe Dys requirements of size and

exercise of the

was no evidence he had the right to

quality,

right

Dy Keh Beng said they were not his

was work

There is an employee-employer

control the manner and method of

respondents work

Since the baskets were don Dys

establishment, it is assumed that he

could easily exercise control

3) Corporal vs NLRC

Petitioners: five barbers, Two

manicurists at New Look Barber

Shop

Four fold test

relationship

Selection &

The petitioners cannot be an

engagement,

Respondents: the petitioners were

independent contractor because they

power of

joint venture partners and receiving

do not have an independent business

dismissal,

They did not have substantial capitial

payment of

(only tools like scissors et.al.)

wages, power to

As far as the result of the work was

control

fifty percent commission of the

amount charged to customers

There is an employee- employer

Respondents: Petitioners are

independent contractors

concerned the barbershop controlled

refers to the

The services of the petitioners were

existence of the

engaged by the respondents to attend

power and not

to the needs of its customers in the

necessarily to

barbershop.

the actual

The petitioners were required to

exercise

observe daily attendance, job

performance and regularity of job
output
Nature of work was directly related to
the business; necessary and desirable

Power to control

them

observe rules and regulations and they

There was a supervisor

4) Maraguinot vs

NLRC

Maraguinot and Enero were part of

Though they were project employees,

Control test

Vivas filming crew

they acquired status of regular because:

Labor only

Their tasks include loading,

there was continuous rehiring even

contractors are

unloading and arranging movie

after cessation of project, tasks

mere agents

equipment in the shooting area as

performed were vital and necessary to

instructed by the camera man

the trade of the employer

They refused to sign an blank

employment contract and were

terminated

Selection and engagement:

Appointment slips

Control: They were supervised by the

Viva claims they are engaged in the

associate producers who served as

distribution and exhibition of

agents of VIVA

movies and not in the business of

making them

They claim that petitioners are

project employees of the association
produces who are independent
contractors

The relationship between VIVA and

its producers is that of agency as
the latter make movies on behalf of
VIVA

5) Sonza vs ABS-CBN

MJMDC where Jay Sonza was the

Jay Sonza was not an employee

Four fold test

president and general manager

Four fold test

Talents

entered into a contract with ABS

There was no selection and

CBN

engagement, he was hired for his

Petitioner then terminated the

unique skills

contract and asked for separation

His payment of 300,000 ++ was not

pay etc.

considered, as a wage for this is too

ABS CBN says he is an independent

large to be considered as such. This

contractor and he is not an

was an agreement

employee

There was no power to terminate for

both of can end the contract

ABS CBN cannot control how he does

his job; it cannot discipline Sonza

The tools provided by ABS CBN does

not constitute control for this were
necessary for the performance of the
job

Guidelines provided by ABS CBN was

given to achieve mutual results and not
to control mean of performing the job

ABS CBN vs

Nazateno

The respondents worked as

production assistants for five years

at ABS CBN Cebu

There exist an employee-employer

Difference of

relationship

talents from

Reasonable connection between the

employees

They entered the CBA but were not

particular activities performed and the

Four fold test

included because they werent

usual trade of business of the employer

Casual to

considered as regular employees

Selection and engagement: They

regularization

They were considered as Program

underwent the usual process of

Employees/ talents

employment

They were paid with wages

There was a certain degree of control

exercised by the petitioner; they were
under the control of assistant studio
manager

Two kinds of regular employees: Those

engaged to perform activities which are
necessary or desirable in the usual
business or the employer and those
casual employees who has rendered
services for at least one year

WPP Marketing vs

Jocelyn Galera

WPP is a corporation registered in

the Philippines

Difference

employer relationship

between

Galera is an American citizen

Selection and engagement

corporate

recruited by Steedman

She was appointed to a non existing

officers and

position

employees

Galera signed an employment

contract

Yes there was an employee and

WPP had control: where and when she

Dec 14: She was notified of

works and she was subject to

termination

disciplinary procedures

WPP argued she was not an

employee but a corporate officer

(VP as managing director)

Her contract stated she was a regular

employee

WPP has power to terminate her

Fourfold test

Galera claimed she was a regular

employee

TAPE vs Servana

Servana served as security guard for

13 years

He was initially connected to Agro

relationship

Commercial Security but he was

absorbed by tape

There was an employee- employer

There was selection and engagement
when he was hired from the agency

Power of dismissal via the

memorandum

Payment of wages

Power to control via time cards &

exclusivity

Four fold test