Jurisprudence on Employer-Employee Relationship

It is firmly settled that the existence or non-existence of the employer-employee relationship is commonly to be determined by examination of certain factors or aspects of that relationship. These include: (a) the manner of selection and engagement of the putative employee; (b) the mode of payment of wages; (c) the presence or absence of a power to control the putative employee's conduct, although the latter is the most important element . (G.R. No. 104658, April 7, 1993)
Jurisprudence is firmly settled that whenever the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute, four elements constitute the reliable yardstick: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee's conduct. It is the so-called "control test," and that is, whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished, which constitute the most important index of the existence of the employer-employee relationship. Stated otherwise, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. (G.R. No. 114733, January 2, 1997)

The fact that it used payslips did not even prove that it paid the worker's salaries; this was only for accounting purposes. (G.R. No. 152459, June 15, 2006)

Where private respondent company selected and engaged the services of petitioner as its resident agent in the Philippines, paid the latter's salary, held the power of dismissal as shown by the various memorandum it issued to petitioner, had the power of control over the means and method of petitioner in accomplishing his work, it was ruled that employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. Exercise of the power of control by the company consisted of various directives it issued to petitioner. (G.R. No. 159333, July 31, 2006; G.R. No. 145443, March 18, 2005)

Popular Posts