In , without any apparent reason, his employment was interrupted as existed an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondent jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the is the company President, he never dispensed the salaries of workers Apply the Four Fold Test to determine employer employee i Selection and from LAWS CA: The prevailing economic relationship of employer and employee can be that defines and governs an; University of St. Thomas; LAWS - Spring of an election protest involving both the mother federation and the local. Three test to determine employer-employee relationship Four-fold test elements Economic reality test Two-tiered test (or Multi-factor test).
Al-Lagadan and Piga, where the court held that there is an employer-employee relationship when the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved but also the manner and means used to achieve that end.
Tests of Employment Relations | Philippine Labor Laws
In applying this test, it is the existence of the right, and not the actual exercise thereof, that is important. Subsequently, another test has been devised to fill the gap, known as the economic reality test. Court of Appeals, the Court observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control, to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.
Economic realities of the employment relations help provide a comprehensive analysis of the true classification of the individual, whether as employee, independent contractor, corporate officer or some other capacity. Under economic reality test, the benchmark in analyzing whether employment relation exists between the parties is the economic dependence of the worker on his employer.
Otherwise, there is none. Two-tiered test or Multi-factor test The economic reality test is not meant to replace the right of control test. Rather, these two test are often use in conjunction with each other to determine the existence of employment relation between the parties. This is known as the two-tiered test, or multi-factor test.
That sometime inVicente pleaded to me for a side line job of his brother, Jesus who was already connected with Allan Mayol. Having vouched for the integrity of his brother and knowing that the job is temporary in character, I allowed Jesus to work with his brother Vicente.
However, the proceeds will be collected together with his brother Vicente since it was the latter who was working with me.Employer & employee relationship
He renders services to his brother work only after the regular working hours but off and on basis. We, the undersigned, all of legal ages, Filipino, and resident[s] of Cebu, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say: Labor Arbiter Carreon was not convinced that Faustino Apondar is an independent contractor who has a contractual relationship with petitioners.
First complainant alleged that he worked continuously from March 17, up to January 21, Furthermore, from the last quarter of up to August ofthe company suspended operations due to economic reverses as per Certification issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission p. It appears that complainant first worked with Allan Mayol and later with Faustino Apondar upon the proddings of his brother Vicente. The certification of Allan Mayol and Fasutino Apondar[,] supplier of finished rattan products[,] that complainant had at one time or another worked with them.
The only connection was that their employer Faustino Apondar supplies finished rattan products to respondents. Vicente averred in his second affidavit that when he confronted his son, the latter explained that he was merely told by their Pastor to sign the affidavit as it will put an end to the controversy.
Vicente insisted that his son did not know the contents and implications of the document he signed. It further noted that the names of the five affiants, whom petitioners admitted to be their former employees, likewise do not appear in the aforesaid documents.
According to the CA, it is apparent that petitioners maintained a separate payroll for certain employees or willfully retained a portion of the payroll. Lagrama, 35 the Court held that the fact that a worker was not reported as an employee to the SSS is not conclusive proof of the absence of employer-employee relationship. Otherwise, an employer would be rewarded for his failure or even neglect to perform his obligation.
For a payroll to be utilized to disprove the employment of a person, it must contain a true and complete list of the employee.
In their comment to the petition filed by respondent in the CA, petitioners emphasized that in the certifications issued by Mayol and Apondar, it was shown that respondent was employed and working for them in those years he claimed to be working for SEIRI.
Such admission however, does not connote employment. For the truth of the matter, all of the five employees of the supplier assigned at the leased premises of the private respondent. Because of the recommendation of the private respondent with regards to the disciplinary measures meted on the five workers, they wanted to hit back against the private respondent. Their motive to implicate private respondent was to vindicate.
Definitely, they have an axe to grind against the private respondent. Mention has to be made that despite the dismissal of these five 5 witnesses from their service, none of them ever went to the National Labor [Relations] Commission and invoked their rights, if any, against their employer or at the very least against the respondent. The reason is obvious, since they knew pretty well that they were not employees of SEIRI but rather under the employ of Allan Mayol and Faustino Apondar, working on a leased premise of respondent.
While they claim that respondent was the employee of their suppliers Mayol and Apondar, they did not submit proof that the latter were indeed independent contractors; clearly, petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving their own affirmative allegation. In any controversy between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer.
Respondent, whose employment was terminated without valid cause by petitioners, is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, back wages shall be computed from the time of the illegal termination up to the finality of the decision.
Separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service should likewise be awarded as an alternative in case reinstatement in not possible.