This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court finds otherwise. Gestupa, Ponteras, Develos, Blanco and Mariano were LPG fillers and maintenance crew; Caberte was an LPG operator supervisor; Te was a warehouseman and utility worker; and Servicio and Galorosa were tanker receiving crew and utility workers. Undoubtedly, the work they rendered were directly related to Petron's main business, vital as they are in the manufacture and distribution of petroleum products. Besides, some of the respondents were already working for Petron even before it engaged ABC as a contractor in 1996. Albeit it was made to appear that they were under the different contractors that Petron engaged over the years, respondents have been regularly performing the same tasks within the premises of Petron. This "the repeated and continuing need for the performance of the job is sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of the activity to the business."[50] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Pakyaw workers are considered employees for as long as their employers exercise control over them. In Legend Hotel Manila v. Realuyo,[68] the Court held that "the power of the employer to control the work of the employee is considered the most significant determinant of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This is the so-called control test and is premised on whether the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control both the end achieved and the manner and means used to achieve that end." It should be remembered that the control test merely calls for the existence of the right to control, and not necessarily the exercise thereof.[69] It is not essential that the employer actually supervises the performance of duties by the employee. It is enough that the former has a right to wield the power.[70] | |||||