Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALEXANDER R. LOPEZ v. METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AM No. 10-9-15-SC 2013-02-12	RE: REQUEST OF CHIEF JUSTICE ARTEMIO v. PANGANIBAN FOR RE-COMPUTATION OF HIS CREDITABLE SERVICE FOR PURPOSE OF RE-COMPUTING HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has consistently adhered to the four-fold test and has asked: "(1) whether the alleged employer has the power of selection and engagement of an employee; (2) whether he has control of the employee with respect to the means and methods by which work is to be accomplished; (3) whether he has the power to dismiss; and (4) whether the employee was paid wages. Of the four, the control test is the most important element,"[36] and its absence renders any further discussion a surplusage.
	GR No. 175501 2010-10-04	MANILA WATER COMPANY v. JOSE J. DALUMPINES NACHURA, J.
Based on the four-fold test of employer-employee relationship, Manila Water emerges as the employer of respondent collectors. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (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. The most important of these elements is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[36]
	GR No. 153192 2009-01-30	DEALCO FARMS v. NLRC NACHURA, J.
In the case at bench, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were one in their conclusion that respondents were not independent contractors, but employees of petitioner. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC examined and weighed the circumstances against the four-fold test which has the following elements: (1) the power to hire, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to dismiss, and (4) the power to control the employees' conduct, or the so-called "control test."[14] Of the four, the power of control is the most important element. More importantly, the control test merely calls for the existence of the right to control, and not necessarily the exercise thereof.[15]
	GR NO. 157851 2007-06-29	ATTY. ANDREA UY v. ARLENE VILLANUEVA NACHURA, J.
To determine whether there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private respondent, the Court has consistently used the "four-fold" test. The test calls for the determination of (1) whether the alleged employer has the power of selection and engagement of an employee; (2) whether he has control of the employee with respect to the means and methods by which work is to be accomplished; (3) whether he has the power to dismiss; and (4) whether the employee was paid wages. Of the four, the control test is the most important element.[42]
	GR NO. 167714 2007-03-07	ROWELL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that the primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the casual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety.[23]