This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| It bears pointing out that Tongko cannot be considered as an independent contractor of Manulife. There is no evidence to establish such a scenario. In Television and Production Exponents, Inc. v. Servaña,[38] the Court enumerates the requirements for a worker to be considered an independent contractor: Aside from possessing substantial capital or investment, a legitimate job contractor or subcontractor carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its own account and under its own responsibility according to its own manner and method, and free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof. TAPE failed to establish that respondent is an independent contractor. As found by the Court of Appeals: | |||||