This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct, or the so-called "control test."[26] In resolving the issue of whether such relationship exists in a given case, substantial evidence that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion is sufficient. Although no particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of the relationship, and any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted, a finding that the relationship exists must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence.[27] | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It must be noted that the issue of Javier's alleged illegal dismissal is anchored on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between him and Fly Ace. This is essentially a question of fact. Generally, the Court does not review errors that raise factual questions. However, when there is conflict among the factual findings of the antecedent deciding bodies like the LA, the NLRC and the CA, "it is proper, in the exercise of Our equity jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate the factual issues and to look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings."[26] In dealing with factual issues in labor cases, "substantial evidence that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion is sufficient."[27] | |||||