The traditional employer/employee relationship is being eroded as employers turn to [Hammermill Paper Company v Rust Engineering, A2d (). In their Position Paper,8 respondents alleged that in August , there was no employer-employee relationship between Expedition 4. Reynaldo Garcia, x 13 x 15 = 83, 5. Mardy Malapit, x 13 x 14 = 77, . the CA found all the elements of employer-employee relationship to be present. PDF | This paper aims to outline the importance of the employer-employee relationship and describes employer who fails to abide by these elements .. 4 . Nationality South African 15 75% The nationality of the owners is: 15 of them were.
They averred further that there was no written contract evidencing project employment nor were they informed of their status as project employees. In a Resolution 18 dated April 30,the NLRC partly granted respondents' motion for reconsideration and modified its earlier Resolution of September 30, This time, the NLRC ruled that respondents were employees of Expedition in view of Expedition's admission that it hired and paid respondents for their services.
The NLRC was also persuaded that Expedition exercised control on when and how respondents would collect garbage. The NLRC, however, sustained its earlier finding that there was no illegal dismissal, ratiocinating that respondents were merely placed on a floating status when the contracts; with Quezon City and Caloocan City expired and thus were merely waiting to be re-assigned to other similar work.
As there was no dismissal to speak of, the NLRC ordered respondents' reinstatement but without the payment of back wages. However, due to Jack of clients where respondents could be re-assigned, the NLRC opted to award separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads: Expedition also questioned the NLRC's computation of separation pay and sought the remand of the case to the LA for proper determination of the correct amount.
Expedition sought recourse to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari. The CA noted that respondents were hired and paid by Expedition. Further, Expedition exercised the power to provide and withhold work from respondents.
Most importantly, the power of control was evident since Expedition determined how, where and when respondents would perform their tasks. The CA held that the respondents needed Expedition's instruction and supervision in the performance of their duties.
The likewise ruled that respondents were regular employees entitled to security of tenure because they continuously worked for several years for the company, an indication that their duties were necessary and desirable in the usual business of Expedition.
The CA, however, did not agree with the NLRC that respondents were on floating status since petitioners did not adduce proof of any dire exigency justifying failure to give respondents any further assignments. The CA observed that the irregular dispatch of respondents due allegedly to the decrease in the need for drivers led to the eventual discontinuance of respondents' services and ultimately, their illegal termination.
Accordingly, the CA ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed when Expedition prevented them from working, and consequently, ordered their reinstatement with full back wages. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: The case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of respondents' monetary awards.
It impugned the award of reinstatement and back wages in favor of respondents, submitting that an amount of financial assistance would be the more equitable remedy for respondents' cause. It, then, manifested its willingness to offer financial assistance to respondents in the amounts equivalent to the separation pay awarded to respondents in the April 30, NLRC Resolution.
Expedition's motion was, however, denied by the CA in its Resolution 26 dated December 9, Issues Hence, Expedition filed this instant Petition presenting the following grounds for review: The CA, thus, had no legal basis in finding that respondents were its employees, much less had regular employment status with it.
Expedition likewise insists that there was no ii legal dismissal and that the CA erred in awarding reinstatement and backwages instead of separation pay, which was prayed for by respondents. Our Ruling The Petition is partly granted. Respondents were regular employees of Expedition. At the outset, it bears emphasis that the question of whether or not respondents were employees of Expedition is a factual issue.
It is settled that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari tiled under Rule Jurisprudence has adhered to the four-fold test in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, to wit: The CA held that Expedition wielded the power to dismiss respondents based on Expedition's admission that when the dispatch of drivers became irregular, it tried to accommodate them by giving trips when the need arose.
The control test was likewise established because Expedition determined how, where, and when respondents would perform their tasks. Expedition, however, proffers that the factual findings of the CA on this matter had no legal basis.
It claims that respondents were never hired but were merely engaged as drivers; that they worked on their own and were not subjected to its control and supervision; that they were compensated based on output or number of trips made in a day; that they selected their own garbage collectors, chose their own route and determined the manner by which they would collect the garbage; and, that they performed their work at their own pleasure without fear of being sanctioned if they chose not to report for work.
The Court finds Expedition's position untenable. Second, it is undeniable that respondents received compensation from Expedition for the services that they rendered to the latter. The fact that respondents were paid on a per trip basis is irrelevant in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship because this was merely the method of computing the proper compensation due to respondents 31 Third, Expedition's power to dismiss was apparent when work was withheld from respondents as a result of the termination of the contracts with Quezon City and Caloocan City.
Finally, Expedition has the power of control over respondents in the performance of their work. It was held that "the power of control refers merely to the existence of the power and not to the actual exercise thereof.
Moreover, the trucks driven by respondents were owned by Expedition. There was an express instruction that these trucks were to be exclusively used to collect and transport garbage.
Respondents were mandated to return the trucks to the premises of Expedition after the collection of garbage. Expedition determined the clients to be served, the location where the garbage is to be collected and when it is to be collected. Indeed, Expedition determined bow, where, and when respondents would perform their tasks.
Respondents were neither independent contractors nor project employees. Therefore, respondents should be accorded the presumption of regular employment pursuant to Article of the Labor Code which provides that "employees who have rendered at least one year of service? A professional who is subject to limited control and supervision may still be an employee based on other factors. Indicators that the worker may be an employee: The payer has the right to: In considering the equipment and tools owned and supplied by the worker, what is relevant is the significance of the investment in the rental or purchase of tools and equipment along with the related costs of replacement, repair, and insurance.
Ownership of the tools, however, is not always a determining factor. The employer also generally covers operating costs, which may include office expenses, employee wages and benefits, insurance premiums, and delivery and shipping costs.
The employee assumes little or no financial risk and is entitled to his or her full salary or wages regardless of the financial position of the business. Integration The integration or organization test examines whether the tasks performed by an individual form an integral part of the business as opposed to merely being accessory to the business.
The test will also determine whether the individual is in business in his or her own right and provides services to other businesses as an independent contractor.
An employee is not perceived as operating his or her own business, but rather as being an integral and necessary part of the payer's business. This list is not exhaustive and not all of the following indicators may be present in every situation.
All facts pertaining to the working relationship need to be considered. As the agency has the right to hire or fire, and decide where and when the work is to be done, the agency is considered to be the employer for EHT purposes.
The term professional specialist refers to a worker who does not require strict instructions from the agency or the contracting client as to how to perform the task assigned, such as an engineer, draughtsperson, surveyor, doctor, technician or computer consultant. Indicators that the worker may be an employee of the agency: Commissioned real estate agents In general, real estate transactions are conducted by registrants under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act who act as real estate brokers brokers or real estate salespersons agents.
Indicators that the agent may be an employee: If the agent is absent from work e. Truck owner operator For the purpose of transporting its goods, a business may have its own fleet of trucks or require the services of a trucking company.
A trucking company that hauls goods is required to obtain an operating licence from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
Workers engaged in construction Construction workers may be employees or independent contractors.