It is concerned with the relationship between employer and employee. by the courts for the purposes of identifying the existence of a contract of employment. Thus, the basis for backwages would only be his management overrides and This may seem diametrically opposed to the way Manulife was run when you . Manulife then filed a Position Paper with Motion to Dismiss dated .. Under this test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person. PDF | This paper aims to outline the importance of the employer-employee relationship and A relationship survey was designed for the study. .. jective, systematic process to describe, test re- affected in one way or another by the findings.
The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual.
They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer. Verily, the mandate of this Court is to ensure that the provisions of the Constitution are carried out. The Court has the responsibility to ensure that the rights of labor, as guaranteed by the Constitution, are actually enjoyed by the workers. Thus, in several cases, the Court has repeatedly resolved doubts as to the relationship between parties as that of employment, that which is most favorable to labor.
The Court, in a slew of cases, has consistently ruled that when there is doubt as to the law to be applied in a case with an allegation of an employer-employee relationship, labor laws and jurisprudence shall apply.
In Social Security System v. Court of Appeals,  the Court was faced with the conflicting claims of the workers and the proprietor on the issue of whether an employer-employee relationship exists.
In the agreement, Carreon was referred to as a vendee of QTCs products.
Their relationship would therefore be covered by the Civil Code provisions on sales. The Court applied the jurisprudence in labor cases and used the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The issue raised by the petitioner before this Court is the very same issue resolved by the Court of Appeals-that is, whether or not Romeo Carreon is an employee or an independent contractor under the contract aforequoted.
Corollary thereto the question as to whether or not the Mafinco case is applicable to this case was raised by the parties. The Court took cognizance of the fact that the question of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in a certain situation continues to bedevil the courts. Some businessmen with the aid of lawyers have tried to avoid the bringing about of an employer-employee relationship in some of their enterprises because that juridical relation spawns obligations connected with workmens compensation, social security, medicare, minimum wage, termination pay and unionism.
For this reason, in order to put the issue at rest, this Court has laid down in a formidable line of decisions the elements to be generally considered in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, as follows: The last which is the so-called control test is the most important element Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Phils.
International Labor and Marine Union of the Phil. Applying the control test, 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 method by which the same is to be accomplished, the question of whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship for purposes of the Social Security Act has been settled in this jurisdiction in the case of Investment Planning Corp.
In other words, where the element of control is absent; where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work, and in turn is compensated according to the result of his effort, the relationship of employer-employee does not exist.
In Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. Maalat,  Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. Maalat was dimissed after having committed violations of the companys policies.
He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of commissions. Cosmopolitan argues that there is no employer-employee relationship between it and Maalat, the latter being an independent contractor. The Court ruled that: In determining whether a person who performs work for another is the latter's employee or an independent contractor, the prevailing test is the right of control test.
Under this test, 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 manner and means to be used in reaching that end. The Court did not consider the provisions of the Civil Code on a Contract for a Piece of Work  in determining the relationship between the parties. Instead, it used the labor law concept, the control test, to determine such relationship.
National Labor Relations Commission  did not consider the Civil Code provisions on lease when it ruled upon the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Jose Espinosas house is located near that project site. Thus, throughout that same period of time, Espinosa allowed petitioner Algon to use his house and the grounds adjacent thereto as a parking and storage place for the latters heavy equipment.
However, Espinosa also claims in addition thereto that there existed an employment contract between himself and petitioner Algon which, he insisted, hired him as a watchman to guard the heavy equipment parked in other leased house spaces in Libtong, Talacogon, Agusan del Sur. The Court ruled therein that: No particular evidence is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. All that is necessary is to show that the employer is capable of exercising control over the employee.
In labor disputes, it suffices that there be a casual connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relations. Petitioner also posits that the CA erred in applying Article of the Labor Code in determining whether there was an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Petitioner contends that where the existence of an employer-employee relationship is in dispute, Article of the Labor Code is inapplicable.
The said article only set the distinction between a casual employee from a regular employee for purposes of determining the rights of an employee to be entitled to certain benefits.
Petitioner insists that respondent is not a regular employee and not entitled to reinstatement. On his part, respondent maintains that he is an employee of the petitioner and that the CA did not err in ruling in his favor.
The petition is meritorious. It bears stressing that there is no appeal from the decision or resolution of the NLRC. As this Court enunciated in the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. The petition should be initially filed before the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.
From the decision of the Court of Appeals, an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before the Supreme Court may be resorted to by the parties.
Hence, respondent's resort to the CA was appropriate under the circumstances. Anent the primordial issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner and respondent. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact and that the findings thereon by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC shall be accorded not only respect but even finality when supported by substantial evidence.
Being supported by substantial evidence, such determination should have been accorded great weight by the CA in resolving the issue.
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
Among other things, respondent was not required to report everyday during regular office hours of petitioner.
Respondent's monthly retainer fees were paid to him either at his residence or a local restaurant. More importantly, petitioner did not prescribe the manner in which respondent would accomplish any of the tasks in which his expertise as a liaison officer was needed; respondent was left alone and given the freedom to accomplish the tasks using his own means and method.
Respondent was assigned tasks to perform, but petitioner did not control the manner and methods by which respondent performed these tasks. Verily, the absence of the element of control on the part of the petitioner engenders a conclusion that he is not an employee of the petitioner.
Moreover, the absence of the parties' retainership agreement notwithstanding, respondent clearly admitted that petitioner hired him in a limited capacity only and that there will be no employer-employee relationship between them. As averred in respondent's Position Paper: For the participation of complainant regarding this particular problem of Atok, Mr. Torres offered him a pay in the amount of Php3, It was also agreed by Mr.
Torres and the complainant that his participation on this particular problem of Atok will be temporary since the problem was then contemplated to be limited in nature, hence, there will be no employer-employee relationship between him and Atok. Complainant agreed on this arrangement.