This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The dissent also erroneously cites eight other cases -- Social Security System v. Court of Appeals,[23] Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat,[24] Algon Engineering Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] Equitable Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] Lazaro v. Social Security Commission,[27] Dealco Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[28] South Davao Development Company, Inc. v. Gamo,[29] and Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corporation.[30] The dissent cited these cases to support its allegation that labor laws and jurisprudence should be applied in cases, to the exclusion of other laws such as the Civil Code or the Insurance Code, even when the latter are also applicable. | |||||
|
2011-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The dissent also erroneously cites eight other cases -- Social Security System v. Court of Appeals,[23] Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat,[24] Algon Engineering Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] Equitable Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[26] Lazaro v. Social Security Commission,[27] Dealco Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[28] South Davao Development Company, Inc. v. Gamo,[29] and Abante, Jr. v. Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corporation.[30] The dissent cited these cases to support its allegation that labor laws and jurisprudence should be applied in cases, to the exclusion of other laws such as the Civil Code or the Insurance Code, even when the latter are also applicable. | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court applies the four-fold test expounded in Abante v. Lamadrid Bearing and Parts Corp.,[16] to wit:To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence has invariably applied the four-fold test, namely: (1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control. Of these four, the last one is the most important. The so-called "control test" is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.[17] To prove the element of payment of wages, petitioner presented a petty cash voucher showing that she received an allowance for five (5) days.[18] The CA did not err when it held that a solitary petty cash voucher did not prove that petitioner had been receiving salary from respondents or that she had been respondents' employee for 10 years. | |||||