1

AMWSLAI
vs.
NLRC, et. alG.R. No. 111870 June 30, 1994By Richard Troy A. Colmenares
USA College of Law6/25/14 12:52:46 AM
Nature of the Case
An appeal on decision rendered by NLRC establishing employer-employee relationship.
Facts
Private-respondent was appointed legal counsel of AMWSLAI in 1980. The appointment was renewed for another three years
through an order dated 23 January 1987. Petitioner sent a reminder when the appointment was about to end, prompting the
private respondent to lodge a complaint before the labor arbiter for illegal dismissal and payment of separation benefits.
Petitioner contested lack of jurisdiction by reason that no employer-employee (E2e) existed between the private parties, but the
same was denied, ruling that private-respondent was legally dismissed and was not entitled to separation benefits being a
managerial employee. Petitioner was however ordered to pay notarial fees from 1997 to 1992, as well as 10% attorneys fees.
Appeal affirmed this decision, and thus this petition.
Issue(s)
(1). Is private-respondent an employee of the petitioner?
Held
(1). Yes.The question on E2e is anchored on the following elements: (1) selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment
ofwages; (3) power of dismissal; and (4) employer's own power to control employee's conduct. This is a question of fact and so is
leftwithin the jurisdiction of the quasi-judicial agency.The petitioner, having reserved the power of dismissal as it may deem
necessary in the terms and conditions attached in the letter dated 23 January 1987, paid private respondent on a monthly basis.
The power of control was also evident in the definition ofprivate respondents duties and functions.Lawyers can be hired as either
in-house counsels or outside counsel, the former having the same classification as regularemployees would. Private respondent
falls on the former category of lawyers, and thus, is an employee of petitioner. However, the decision to award private-respondent
notarial fees from 1987 to 1997 was incorrect. Although money claims arewithin the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter, private-
respondents award for his claim on notarial fees is not substantiated by proof. Thenotarial services actually form part of his
regular function, and thus already covered under his monthly compensation. Attorneysfees is also disallowed

CHAVEZ VS. NLRC

448 SCRA 478. January 17, 2005
FACTS
The respondent company, Supreme Packaging, Inc. engaged the services of the petitioner, Pedro Chavez, as truck driver. The
respondent company furnished the petitioner with a truck. The petitioner expressed to respondent Alvin Lee, respondent companys
plant manager, his
desire to avail himself of the benefits that the regular employees were receiving such as overtime pay, nightshift differential pay,
and 13th month pay, among others. Although he promised to extend these benefits to the petitioner, respondent Lee failed to
actually do so. Petitioner filed a complaint for regularization with the Regional Arbitration Branch. Before the case could be
heard, respondent company terminated the services of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filed an amended complaint
against the respondents for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and non-payment of overtime pay, nightshift differential pay,
and 13thmonth pay, among others. The respondents, for their part, denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between the respondent company and the petitioner. They averred that the petitioner was an independent contractor as evidenced
by the contract of service which he and the respondent company entered into. The relationship of the respondent company and the
petitioner was allegedly governed by this contract of service.The respondents insisted that the petitioner had the sole control over
the means and methods by which his work was accomplished. He paid the wages of his helpers and exercised control over them.
As such, the petitioner was not entitled to regularization because he was not an employee of the respondent company. The
respondents, likewise, maintained that they did not dismiss the petitioner. Rather, the severance of his contractual relation with
the respondent company was due to his violation of the terms and conditions of their contract.

ISSUE:
whether or not there existed an employer-employee relationship between the respondent company and the petitioner.
RULING:
Yes. There was an employer-employee relationship in the case at bar. The elements to determine the existence of an employment
relationship are: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4)
the employers power to control the employees conduct.
All the four elements are present in this case. Of the four elements of the employer-employee relationship,
the control test is the most important. Although the respondents denied that they exercised control over the manner and
methods by which the petitioner accomplished his work, a careful review of the records shows that the latter performed his work
 2

as truck driver under the respondents supervision and control. Their right of control was manifested by the following attendant
circumstances :1. The truck driven by the petitioner belonged to respondent company;2. There was an express instruction from
the respondents that the truck shall be used exclusively to deliver respondent companys goods; 3. Respondents directed the
petitioner, after completion of each delivery, to park the truck in either of two specific places only, to wit: at its office in Metro
Manila at 2320 Osmea Street, Makati City or at BEPZ, Mariveles, Bataan; and4. Respondents determined how, where and when
the petitioner would perform his task by issuing to him gate passes and routing slips.
COSMOPOLITAN FUNERAL HOMES VS. MAALAT, 187 SCRA 773

FACTS: Petitioner Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. engaged the services of private respondent Noli
Maalat as a "supervisor" to handle the solicitation of mortuary arrangements, sales and collections.
The funeral services which he sold refer to the taking of the corpse, embalming, casketing, viewing and
delivery. The private respondent was paid on a commission basis of 3.5% of the amounts actually
collected and remitted. On January 15, 1987, respondent Maalat was dismissed by the petitioner for
commission of several violations despite previous warnings. Maalat filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and non-payment of commissions. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring Maalat's
dismissal illegal. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not a "funeraria" supervisor is an employee or a commission agent

RULING: Under the "right of 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 to be achieved, but
also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end. In the case at bar, the fact that the
petitioner imposed and applied its rule prohibiting superiors from engaging in other funeral business
which it considered inimical to company interests proves that it had the right of control and actually
exercised its control over the private respondent. In other words, Maalat worked exclusively for the
petitioner. He was also prohibited from engaging in part-time embalming business outside of the
company and a violation thereof was cause for dismissal. Incurring absences without leave was
likewise subject to disciplinary action. Moreover, the payment of compensation by way of commission
does not militate against the conclusion that private respondent was an employee.

Insular Life v. NLRC (Nov. 15, 1989)

FACTS:

Insular Life (company) and Basiao entered into a contract by which Basiao was authorized to
solicit for insurance in accordance with the rules of the company. He would also receive compensation,
in the form of commissions. The contract also contained the relations of the parties, duties of the agent
and the acts prohibited to him including the modes of termination.

After 4 years, the parties entered into another contract an Agency Managers Contact and
to implement his end of it, Basiao organized an agency while concurrently fulfilling his commitment
under the first contract.

The company terminated the Agency Managers Contract. Basiao sued the company in a civil
action. Thus, the company terminated Basiaos engagement under the first contract and stopped
payment of his commissions.

ISSUE: W/N Basiao had become the companys employee by virtue of the contract, thereby placing his
claim for unpaid commissions

HELD: No.
 3

Rules and regulations governing the conduct of the business are provided for in the Insurance
Code. These rules merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result
without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it. Its aim is only to promote the
result, thereby creating no employer-employee relationship. It is usual and expected for an insurance
company to promulgate a set of rules to guide its commission agents in selling its policies which
prescribe the qualifications of persons who may be insured. None of these really invades the agents
contractual prerogative to adopt his own selling methods or to sell insurance at his own time and
convenience, hence cannot justifiable be said to establish an employer-employee relationship between
Basiao and the company.

The respondents limit themselves to pointing out that Basiaos contract with the company
bound him to observe and conform to such rules. No showing that such rules were in fact promulgated
which effectively controlled or restricted his choice of methods of selling insurance.

Therefore, Basiao was not an employee of the petitioner, but a commission agent, an
independent contract whose claim for unpaid commissions should have been litigated in an ordinary
civil action.

Wherefore, the complain of Basiao is dismissed.

BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT vs HON. ZAMORA (1991)

FACTS:

Petitioners-members of Brotherhood Labor Unit Movement of the Philippines (BLUM), worked

as cargadores or pahinante since 1961 at the SMC Plant. Sometime in January 1969, the
petitioner workers numbering 140 organized themselves and engaged in union activities.
Believing that they are entitled to overtime and holiday pay, the petitioners aired their gripes
and grievances but it was not heeded by the respondents. One of the union member was
dismissed from work. Hence, the petitioners filed a complaint of unfair labor practice against
respondent SMC on the ground of illegal dismissal.
On the other hand, SMC argued that the complainant are not or have never been their
employees but they are the employees of the Guaranteed Labor Contractor, an independent labor
contracting firm
Labor Arbiter Nestor Lim rendered a decision in favor of the complainants which was
affirmed by the NLRC
On appeal, the Secretary set aside the NLRC ruling stressing the absence of an employer-
employee relationship
Issue: Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners and respondent San
Miguel Corporation
HELD: YES

In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the elements that are generally
considered are the following: (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 with respect
to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. It is the called "control test" that
is the most important element

In the CAB, petitioners worked continuously and exclusively for an average of 7 years for the
company. Considering the length of time that the petitioners have worked, there is justification to
conclude that they were engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual business of
trade of the respondent. Hence, petitioners are considered regular employees.
 4

Even assuming that there is a contract of employment executed between SMC and the said labor
contractor, the court ruled that Guaranteed and Reliable Labor contractors have neither substantial
capital nor investment to qualify as an independent contractor under the law. The premises, tools and
equipments used by the petitioners in their jobs are all supplied by the respondent SMC. It is only the
manpower or labor force which the alleged contractors supply, suggesting the existence of a "labor
only" contracting scheme prohibited by law

It is important to emphasize that that in a truly independent contractor-contractee relationship, the

fees are paid directly to the manpower agency in lump sum without indicating or implying that the
basis of such lump sum is the salary per worker multiplied by the number of workers assigned to the
company.

In the CAB, the alleged independent contractors were paid a lump sum representing only the
salaries the workers were entitled to, arrived at by adding the salaries of each worker which depend
on the volume of work they had accomplished individually. Therefore, there is no independent
contractor-contractee relationship.

WHEREFORE, PETITION IS GRANTED.

Tongko v. Manufacturers LIfe Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc.

(570 SCRA 503)

FACTS: The contractual relationship between Tongko and Manulife had two basic phases. The first phase began on July 1, 1977, under a
Career Agents Agreement, which provided that the Agent is an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be construed or
interpreted as creating an employer-employee relationship between the Company and the Agent.
The second phase started in 1983 when Tongko was named Unit Manager in Manulifes Sales Agency Organization. In 1990, he
became a Branch Manager. In 1996), Tongko became a Regional Sales Manager. Tongkos gross earnings consisted of commissions,
persistency income, and management overrides. Since the beginning, Tongko consistently declared himself self-employed in his income tax
returns. Under oath, he declared his gross business income and deducted his business expenses to arrive at his taxable business income.
Respondent Renato Vergel de Dios, sales manager, wrote Tongko a letter dated November 6, 2001 on concerns that were brought
up during the Metro North Sales Managers Meeting, expressing dissatisfaction of Tongkos performance in their agent recruiting business,
which resulted in some changes on how Tongko would conduct his duties, including that Tongko hire at his expense a competent assistant to
unload him of routine tasks, which he had been complaining to be too taxing for him.
On December 18, 2001, de Dios wrote Tongko another letter which served as notice of termination of his Agency Agreement with
the company effective fifteen days from the date of the letter. Tongko filed an illegal dismissal complaint with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), alleging that despite the clear terms of the letter terminating his Agency Agreement, that he was Manulifes employee
before he was illegally dismissed.
The labor arbiter decreed that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.
The NLRC reversed the labor arbiters decision on appeal; it found the existence of an employer-employee relationship and
concluded that Tongko had been illegally dismissed.
The Court of Appeals found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in its ruling and reverted to the labor arbiters decision
that no employer-employee relationship existed between Tongko and Manulife.

ISSUE: Is there an employer-employee relationship between Tongko and Manulife?

.
HELD: NO. In the determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists between 2 parties, this court applies the four-fold test to
determine the existence of the elements of such relationship. Jurisprudence is firmly settled that whenever the existence of an employment
relationship is in dispute, four elements constitute the reliable yardstick: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employers power to control the employees conduct. IT is the so-called control test which
constitutes the most important index of existence of the employer-employee relationship that is, whether the employer controls or has reserved
the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to
be accomplished. Stated otherwise, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves
the right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. In the case at bar, the absence of
evidence showing Manulifes control over Tongkos contractual duties points to the absence of any employer-employee relationship between
Tongko and Manulife. In the context of the established evidence, Tongko remained an agent all along; although his subsequent duties made
him a lead agent with leadership role, he was nevertheless only an agent whose basic contract yields no evidence of means-and-manner
control. Claimant clearly failed to substantiate his claim of employment relationship by the quantum of evidence the Labor Code requires.
 5

Tongkos failure to comply with the guidelines of de Dios letter, as a ground for termination of Tongkos agency, is a matter that the
labor tribunals cannot rule upon in the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Jurisdiction over the matter belongs to the courts
applying the laws of insurance, agency and contracts.

Dispositive: We REVERSE our Decision of November 7, 2008, GRANT Manulifes motion for reconsideration and, accordingly,
DISMISS Tongkos petition.

SONZA vs. ABS-CBN Case Digest

JOSE SONZA vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 138051
June 10, 2004

Facts: In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an agreement with the Mel and Jay Management and Development
Corporation (MJMDC). ABS-CBN was represented by its corporate officers while MJMDC was represented by Sonza,
as President and general manager, and Tiangco as its EVP and treasurer. Referred to in the agreement as agent,
MJMDC agreed to provide Sonzas services exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. ABS-CBN
agreed to pay Sonza a monthly talent fee of P310, 000 for the first year and P317, 000 for the second and third year.

On April 1996, Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-CBN where he irrevocably resigned in view of the recent events
concerning his program and career. After the said letter, Sonza filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a
complaint alleging that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service incentive pay,13th month pay,
signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts under the Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP). ABS-CBN contended
that no employee-employer relationship existed between the parties. However, ABS-CBN continued to remit Sonzas
monthly talent fees but opened another account for the same purpose.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and found that there is no employee-employer relationship. NLRC affirmed
the decision of the Labor Arbiter. CA also affirmed the decision of NLRC.

Issue: Whether or not there was employer-employee relationship between the parties.

Ruling: Case law has consistently held that the elements of an employee-employer relationship are selection and
engagement of the employee, the payment of wages, the power of dismissal and the employers power to control the
employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called "control
test", is the most important element.

Sonzas services to co-host its television and radio programs are because of his peculiar talents, skills and celebrity
status. Independent contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish
them from ordinary employees. The specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent and
celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an
independent contractual relationship. All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result of negotiations
that led to the Agreement. For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either party may terminate their
relationship. Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an employee but an independent
contractor.

The control test is the most important test our courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an independent
contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision
and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well
the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor. To perform
his work, SONZA only needed his skills and talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on television, and
sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBNs control. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-
CBN merely reserved the right to modify the program format and airtime schedule "for more effective programming."
ABS-CBNs sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in the ratings.

Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods of performance of Sonzas work. A radio
broadcast specialist who works under minimal supervision is an independent contractor. Sonzas work as television
and radio program host required special skills and talent, which SONZA admittedly possesses.

ABS-CBN claims that there exists a prevailing practice in the broadcast and entertainment industries to treat talents
like Sonza as independent contractors. The right of labor to security of tenure as guaranteed in the Constitution
arises only if there is an employer-employee relationship under labor laws. Individuals with special skills, expertise or
talent enjoy the freedom to offer their services as independent contractors. The right to life and livelihood guarantees
 6

this freedom to contract as independent contractors. The right of labor to security of tenure cannot operate to deprive
an individual, possessed with special skills, expertise and talent, of his right to contract as an independent contractor.

Case Digest: Bernarte v. PBA, et al.

G.R. No.192084 : September 14, 2011

JOSE MEL BERNARTE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION (PBA), JOSE EMMANUEL M.
EALA, and PERRY MARTINEZ, Respondents

CARPIO,J.:

FACTS:

Complainants (Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra) aver that they were invited to join the PBA as referees.
During the leadership of Commissioner Emilio Bernardino, they were made to sign contracts on a year-to-year basis.
During the term of Commissioner Eala, however, changes were made on the terms of their employment.

Complainants were not illegally dismissed because they were not employees of the PBA. Their respective contracts
of retainer were simply not renewed. PBA had the prerogative of whether or not to renew their contracts, which they
knew were fixed.\

The Labor Arbiter declared petitioner an employee whose dismissal by respondents was illegal.Tthe NLRC affirmed
the Labor Arbiter's judgment. The Court of Appeals, which overturned the decisions of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter.
The Court of Appeals found petitioner an independent contractor since respondents did not exercise any form of
control over the means and methods by which petitioner performed his work as a basketball referee.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner is an employee of respondents, which in turn determines whether petitioner was illegally
dismissed.

HELD: The petitioners are not employees of respondents.

LABOR LAW:

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact. As a general rule, factual issues
are beyond the province of this Court. However, this rule admits of exceptions, one of which is where there are
conflicting findings of fact between the Court of Appeals, on one hand, and the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, on the other,
such as in the present case.

To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law has consistently applied the four-fold
test, to wit:
(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 on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished.
The so-called"control test"is the most important indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee
relationship.

The fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not by itself prove that petitioner is an employee of the former. For
a hired party to be considered an employee, the hiring party must have control over the means and methods by
which the hired party is to perform his work, which is absent in this case. The continuous rehiring by PBA of petitioner
simply signifies the renewal of the contract between PBA and petitioner, and highlights the satisfactory services
rendered by petitioner warranting such contract renewal. Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue petitioner's
services at the end of the term fixed in the contract, whether for unsatisfactory services, or violation of the terms and
conditions of the contract, or for whatever other reason, the same merely results in the non-renewal of the contract,
as in the present case. The non-renewal of the contract between the parties does not constitute illegal dismissal of
petitioner by respondents.
 7

DENIED

OROZCO V. CA

Wilhelmina Orozco was hired as a writer by the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) in 1990. She was the columnist of
Feminist Reflections under the Lifestyle section of the publication. She writes on a weekly basis and on a per article
basis (P250-300/article).

In 1991, Magsanoc as the editor-in-chief sought to improve the Lifestyle section of the paper. She said there were too
many Lifestyle writers and that it was time to reduce the number of writers. Orozcos column was eventually dropped.

Orozco filed for a case for Illegal Dismissal against PDI and Magsanoc. Orozco won in the Labor Arbiter. The LA ruled
that there exists an employer-employee relationship between PDI and Orozco hence Orozco is entitled to receive
backwages, reinstatement, and 13th month pay.

PDI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The NLRC denied the appeal because of the failure of
PDI to post a surety bond as required by Article 223 of the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC.

ISSUE: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between PDI and Orozco. Whether or not
PDIs appeal will prosper.

HELD: Under Article 223 of the Labor Code:

ART. 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the
Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.

In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the
amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to
assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the
dismissal of the employers appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even
evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees just and lawful claims.

But in this case, this principle is relaxed by the Supreme Court considering the fact that the Labor Arbiter, in ruling
that the Orozco is entitled to backwages, did not provide any computation.

The case is then remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation. This necessarily pended the resolution of the
other issue of whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between PDI and Orozco.
 8

CONSULTA vs CA Case Digest

[G.R. No. 145443. March 18, 2005]

RAQUEL P. CONSULTA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PAMANA PHILIPPINES, INC., RAZUL Z.
REQUESTO, and ALETA TOLENTINO, respondents.

FACTS: Consulta was Managing Associate of Pamana. On 1987 she was issued a certification authorizing her to
negotiate for and in behalf of PAMANA with the Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees Association. Consulta was
able to secure an account with FFCEA in behalf of PAMANA. However, Consulta claimed that PAMANA did not pay
her commission for the PPCEA account and filed a complaint for unpaid wages or commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Consulta was an employee of PAMANA.

HELD: The SC held that Pamana was an independent agent and not an employee.

The power of control in the four fold test is missing. The manner in which Consulta was to pursue her tasked activities
was not subject to the control of PAMANA. Consulta failed to show that she worked definite hours. The amount of
time, the methods and means, the management and maintenance of her sales division were left to her sound
judgment.

Finally, Pamana paid Consulta not for labor she performed but only for the results of her labor. Without results,
Consultas labor was her own burden and loss. Her right to compensation, or to commission, depended on the
tangible results of her work - whether she brought in paying recruits.

The fact that the appointment required Consulta to solicit business exclusively for Pamana did not mean Pamana
exercised control over the means and methods of Consultas work as the term control is understood in labor
jurisprudence. Neither did it make Consulta an employee of Pamana. Pamana did not prohibit Consulta from
engaging in any other business, or from being connected with any other company, for as long as the business or
company did not compete with Pamanas business. The exclusivity clause was a reasonable restriction to prevent
similar acts prejudicial to Pamanas business interest. Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides that [t]he contracting
parties may establish such stipulation, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided that
they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

There being no employer-employee relationship between Pamana and Consulta, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had
no jurisdiction to entertain and rule on Consultas money claim. Consultas remedy is to file an ordinary civil action to
litigate her claim

Petition is dismissed.

LEONARDO vs CA

FACTS:

BALTEL holds the franchise from the Municipality of Balagtas, Bulacan to operate a telephone
service in the municipality. BALTEL also has authority from the National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC) to operate in the municipality.

It hired Emelita Leonardo and others for various positions in the company.

BALTEL6 and DIGITEL entered into a management contract, under the terms of the contract,
DIGITEL was to provide:

o personnel, consultancy and technical expertise in the management, administration,

and operation of BALTELs telephone service in Balagtas, Bulacan.
 9

o undertook to improve the internal and external plants of BALTELs telephone system
and to handle customer relations.

o Handle other matters necessary for the efficient management and operation of the
telephone system.

1994, BALTEL informed the NTC that it would cease to operate effective 28 February 1994
because it was no longer in a financial position to continue its operations. It assigned to
DIGITEL its buildings and other improvements on a parcel of land in Balagtas, Bulacan where
BALTEL conducted its business operations, whish assignment was in partial payment of
BALTELs obligation to DIGITEL.

Leonardos employment ceased.

They executed separate, undated and similarly worded quitclaims acknowledging receipt of
various amounts representing their claims from BALTEL.

o In their quitclaims, petitioners absolved and released BALTEL from all monetary claims
that arose out of their employer-employee relationship with the company.

o Petitioners also acknowledged that BALTEL closed its operations due to serious
business losses.

Leonardo filed a compalaint against BALTEL for recovery of salary differential and attorneys
fees. It also included illegal dismissal as additional cause of action and to implead DIGITEL as
additional respondent.

o DIGITEL denied having any liability on the ground that it was not petitioners employer.

LABOR ARBITER RULED:

o Decision favored Leonardo. Instructed DIGITEL to pay for salary differential and to
reinstate all the complainants to their former or equivalent positions.

DIGITEL appealed to NLRC but it denied the motion for recommendation.

CA RULED:

o Reversed the decision of NLRC insofar as it held DIGITEL severally liable with BALTEL.

o DIGITEL is not the successor in interest of BALTEL nor did it become the absolute owner
of BALTEL or that DIGITEL absorbed the employess of BALTEl.

o No showing of DIGITEL acquiring franchise of BALTEL.

ISSUE:

Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners and DIGITEL?

 10

HELD:

NO, the decision of Court of Appeals is affirmed.

RATIO:

To determine the existence of employer-employee relationship, it has to be resolved who has

the power to select employees, pay for their wages, etc.
The most important element is the CONTROL TEST. There is employer-employee
relationship when the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to
control not only the end achieved but also the manner and means used to achieve the end.
DIGITEL has the power to control, however, this power flows from the management contract
which includes providing for personnel, consultancy, etc. the control test cannot be applied.
DIGITEL did not hire petitioners. BALTEL had already employed them when it entered into an
agreement with DIGITEL. Hence, it has no power to dismiss BALTELs employees.

18. SGV V DE RAEDT

[G.R. NO. 161366 : June 16, 2009]

SYCIP, GORRES, VELAYO & COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CAROL DE RAEDT, Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a Petition for Review 1 challenging the 7 October 2003 Decision 2 and 17 December
2003 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59916. The Court of Appeals reversed the
16 February 2000 Decision4 of the National Labor Relations Commission and partially reinstated the 14
July 1999 Decision5 of Labor Arbiter Monroe C. Tabingan holding that respondent Carol De Raedt (De
Raedt) was illegally dismissed by petitioner Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Company (SGV).

The Facts

Sometime in June 1989, the Philippine Government and the Commission for European Communities
(Commission) entered into a Financing Memorandum whereby the Commission undertook to provide
financial and technical assistance for the implementation of rural micro projects in five provinces of the
Cordillera area in Northern Luzon. Consequently, the Central Cordillera Agricultural Programme
(CECAP) project was launched to be implemented by the Department of Agriculture (DA).

On 22 May 1989, the DA contracted Travers Morgan International Ltd. (TMI) to provide the required
technical assistance services for CECAP.

On 1 July 1989, TMI and SGV entered into a Sub-Consultancy Agreement for the latter to undertake
part of the technical assistance services requirements of the CECAP. SGV would provide for the
Technical Assistance Services. Hence, SGV proposed qualified consultants as defined by the Terms of
Reference.

The acceptance and appointment of the proposed consultants to the project were subject to the
unanimous approval of the TMI, the DA and the Commission. For the position of Sociologist, SGV
 11

proposed Felino Lorente (Lorente). However, Thomas Gimenez (Gimenez) of the DA disputed the
qualifications of Lorente and recommended instead De Raedt.

Martin Tull (Tull) of TMI replied to Gimenez that TMI would consider De Raedt for the sociologist
position. Thus, Gimenez volunteered to call De Raedt to advise her of a possible assignment to the
CECAP.

Eventually, the DA advised SGV that De Raedt's nomination, among others, had been approved by the
Commission and the DA and that she was expected to start her assignment on 3 July 1989.

On 6 July 1989, De Raedt wrote SGV expressing her conformity to the consultancy contract, thus she
was advised to sign the same. De Raedt signed the contract on 14 July 1989 but her start-up date with
the CECAP was moved to 15 August 1989 with the approval of the DA because she was in Thailand to
finish an assignment.

While the CECAP was in progress, TMI received verbal and written complaints from the project staff
regarding De Raedt's performance and working relations with them.

An investigation was then conducted by the TMI on the above complaints. Thereafter, the TMI
confirmed that De Raedt's retention would be counter-productive to the progress of the project
because a number of project staff found it difficult to work with her. Thus, the TMI directed SGV to
withdraw De Raedt from the CECAP.

In compliance with TMI's instructions, SGV facilitated De Raedt's withdrawal from the CECAP.

De Raedt filed a case against SGV for illegal dismissal and damages before the Arbitration Branch of
the NLRC.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of De Raedt.

SGV appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, which rendered judgment in favor of SGV.

De Raedt filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC in a Decision
promulgated on 7 October 2003.

SGV filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution
dated 17 December 2003.

Hence, this petition.

The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

The Labor Arbiter found De Raedt as an employee of SGV. How she conducted herself and how she
carried out the project were dependent on and prescribed by SGV and TMI, respectively. The Labor
Arbiter further ruled that SGV is considered as the employer of De Raedt since it acted indirectly in the
interest of TMI, the entity directly in-charge of the CECAP project for which De Raedt was hired.
Moreover, the Labor Arbiter found SGV as the entity which is the source of De Raedt's income and
other benefits.rbl r l l lbrr

The Labor Arbiter found no sufficient valid ground to terminate De Raedt's services although
procedural due process was observed. The dispositive portion of the 14 July 1999 Decision of the Labor
Arbiter reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant to have been illegally dismissed by
respondent. Consequently, respondent Sycip, Gorres & Velayo and Co. is hereby ordered to pay
complainant the following:
 12

a) Unpaid salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the contract in the amount of Eight
Hundred Two Thousand (P802,000.00) Pesos;

b) Moral damages in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand (P250,000.00) Pesos;

c) Exemplary damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos;

d) 10% of the total award as attorney's fees amounting to One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred
Pesos (P115,200.00).

The computations of which are hereto attached as Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof.

SO ORDERED.6

The Ruling of the NLRC

The NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and found that there was no employer-employee
relationship between SGV and De Raedt.

The NLRC agreed with the Labor Arbiter's finding that SGV had no discretion in the selection of De
Raedt for the position of Sociologist in the CECAP. The selection was made by the TMI, upon
recommendation of Gimenez of the DA, to be approved by the DA and the Commission. The
engagement of De Raedt was coursed through SGV.

The payment of De Raedt's service fee was done through SGV but the funds came from the TMI as
shown by SGV's billings to TMI for De Raedt's professional fee.

As regards the power of dismissal, SGV merely implemented TMI's instructions to withdraw De Raedt
from the CECAP.

The NLRC found that SGV did not exercise control over De Raedt's work. The Sub-Consultancy
Agreement between TMI and SGV clearly required De Raedt to work closely with and under the
direction and supervision of both the Team leader and the Project Coordinator.

Hence, SGV's participation is to merely monitor her attendance, through time records, for the payment
of her retainer fee and to validate the time she expended in the project with her written reports.

The following circumstances also indicated that no employment relationship existed between the
parties: (1) De Raedt was engaged on a contract basis; (2) the letter-agreement between the parties
clearly states that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties and that De Raedt
was at all times to be considered an independent contractor; and (3) De Raedt was allowed to engage
in other employment during all the time she was connected with the project.

The dispositive portion of the 16 February 2000 Decision of the NLRC reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Labor Arbiter is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.7

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter
insofar as the latter found De Raedt as an employee of SGV.
 13

The Court of Appeals found that based on the letter-agreement between the parties, SGV engaged De
Raedt for the project on a contract basis for 40 months over a period of five years during which she
was to work full time. She could not engage in any other employment. In fact, she had to resign from
her teaching job at the University of the Philippines. She could not leave her place of assignment
without SGV's consent. She must maintain an accurate record of the time she spent on the job, and
prepare reports which may be required by her team leader and SGV. Whether actual supervision of her
work had turned out to be minimal or not, SGV reserved the right to exercise it at any time. Further,
SGV asserted its right to terminate her services.8

The Court of Appeals found that De Raedt was removed from the project because of personality
differences, which is not one of the grounds for a valid dismissal of an employee. 9

The dispositive portion of the 7 October 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed decision of the NLRC dated February 16, 2000 is REVERSED,
and a new one ENTERED partially REINSTATING the Decision of Labor Arbiter Monroe Tabing[a]n on July
14, 1999, by affirming paragraph (a) thereof, deleting paragraph (b) and (c), and reducing the award of
attorney's fees in paragraph (d) to 5% of the principal award.

SO ORDERED.10

The Issue

The issue in this case is whether De Raedt was an employee of SGV. If so, whether De Raedt was
illegally dismissed by SGV.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious.

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact. As a general rule,

factual issues are beyond the province of this Court. However, this rule admits of exceptions, one of
which is where there are conflicting findings of fact, such as in the present case. Consequently, this
Court shall scrutinize the records to ascertain the facts for itself. 11

To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law has consistently applied
the four-fold test, to wit: (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 on the means and
methods by which the work is accomplished. The so-called "control test" is the most important
indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. 12

A. Selection and Engagement of the Employee

De Raedt was contracted by SGV as part of the latter's obligation under the Sub-Consultancy
Agreement with TMI, which was in turn contracted by the DA to provide the services required for the
foreign-assisted CECAP project. De Raedt was neither engaged by SGV as an ordinary employee, nor
was she picked by SGV from a pool of consultants already working for SGV. Hence, SGV engaged De
Raedt's services precisely because SGV had an existing Sub-Consultancy Agreement with TMI to
provide such services.rbl r l l lbrr

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC both agree that SGV had no discretion in the selection of De Raedt for
the position of Sociologist in the CECAP. The selection was made by the TMI, upon recommendation of
Gimenez of the DA, to be approved by the DA and the Commission. The engagement of De Raedt was
merely coursed through SGV.
 14

Moreover, SGV's first choice for the Sociologist position was Lorente. However, Gimenez recommended
De Raedt to SGV. De Raedt's testimony proves that her appointment was ultimately the DA's decision,
and not SGV's, thus:

Q Madam Witness, how did you come to know the vacancy here in CECAP project for a position of
project Sociologist?cralawred

A I was contacted when I was in Honolulu. I was contacted by the firm Sarmiento and Company who
asked me if I would list myself for the position of project sociologist for the CECAP project in 1987 when
it was discussed by the NGO's in the Cordillera and finally I was contacted by the SGV. They asked me
if I am interested in the position project sociologist. I was also contacted by Mr. Gimenez to ask me if
SGV had contacted me regarding the position.

Q So among the informants who gave you an idea that the position of project sociologist is the project
director himself, is it not?cralawred

A He informed me that I have been considered by the Department of Agriculture for the
position of project sociologist.

Q Before you were considered for the position of (sic) the Department of Agriculture, did you give them
an application?cralawred

A No, sir.

Q Do you know who gave your name to them?cralawred

A Not sure, may be the Department of Agriculture or Sarmiento, because I was asked by the
consultancy firm Sarmiento if I would be willing to list with their business consultants for the CECAP
project and this was before the bidding and Sarmiento did not make the bidding for the project.

Q Sarmiento is different from SGV is that correct?cralawred

A Yes, sir.13 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

B. Payment of Wages

The letter-agreement between the parties specifies the consideration for De Raedt's services as a
retainer fee payable for every day of completed service in the project. In addition to this, monthly
subsistence and housing allowances and medical insurance were to be given to De Raedt. The retainer
fees and privileges given to De Raedt are not commonly given to ordinary employees, who receive
basic monthly salaries and other benefits under labor laws.

The Court notes that the retainer fees paid by SGV to De Raedt ultimately came from its "client," TMI.
De Raedt was aware that the source of the funds was the grant from the Commission. By the terms of
the Sub-Consultancy Agreement, TMI paid SGV remuneration of the fixed unit rate component of the
part services.

However, whatever amount SGV received from TMI did not necessarily entitle De Raedt to the entire
amount. In the parties' letter-agreement, SGV made it clear that payments made by TMI "should not be
construed as being due [De Raedt] since these items are intended for the administration, overhead
expenses, and other related expenses of [SGV] in the development, management, and supervision of
[De Raedt's] assignment."

C. Power of Dismissal
 15

Under the letter-agreement between the parties, SGV may terminate De Raedt's services "at anytime
that the contract between the Department of Agriculture - Government of the Philippines and Travers
Morgan International, Consulting Engineers, Planners and Management Consultants is terminated for
any cause whatsoever."

De Raedt failed to show that SGV could terminate her services on grounds other than the end of the
contract between the DA as implementing agency of the CECAP and TMI or the termination by TMI of
the contract with SGV, such as retrenchment to prevent losses as provided under labor laws. 14

Further, under the parties' agreement, should De Raedt decide to leave the project for any reason
whatsoever other than a reasonable cause beyond her control which prevents her from performing the
required services, De Raedt shall be liable for liquidated damages for breach of contract, in an amount
equivalent to the retainer fee for a period of one month. This pre-termination with penalty clause in the
parties' agreement clearly negates the existence of an employment relationship between the parties. If
De Raedt were indeed SGV's employee, she should have been able to resign for whatever professional
or personal reason at anytime, even prior to the end of the contract between the DA and TMI or
between TMI and SGV, without incurring any liability for such resignation.

Besides, it was TMI, through Tull, which instructed SGV to disengage De Raedt from the project.
Terminating De Raedt's services was beyond SGV's control, as SGV had no choice but to comply with
the directive of its client (TMI). Clearly, De Raedt's retention as a Sociologist in the CECAP project was
dependent on TMI's and DA's decisions. In his letter dated 14 June 1991 addressed to SGV, Tull wrote
the following:

Notwithstanding a number of staff on the project, all employed by the Department of Agriculture, have
confirmed that they have found it difficult to work with Mrs de Raedt over the past few months which
supports the earlier advice from the Department of Agriculture.

In the circumstances I consider we have no alternative but to replace Mrs de Raedt. Would
you please make arrangement for her to be withdrawn from the project by the end of June 1991.
Payment of staff fees and housing allowances under the project in respect of Mrs de Raedt will be paid
up to 30th June 1991.15 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

D. Power of Control

The letter-agreement between the parties required De Raedt to maintain an accurate time record,
notify SGV of delays in De Raedt's schedule, secure a prior clearance to leave place of assignment, and
prepare reports. These requirements hardly show that SGV exercises control over the means and
methods in the performance of De Raedt's duties as a Sociologist of the CECAP. SGV was not
concerned with De Raedt's ways of accomplishing her work as a Sociologist. Rather, SGV naturally
expected to be updated regularly of De Raedt's "work progress," if any, on the project for which she
was specifically engaged16 to ensure SGV's compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sub-
Consultancy Agreement with TMI. The services to be performed by her specified what she needed to
achieve but not on how she was to go about it.17

In sum, there existed no employer-employee relationship between the parties. De Raedt is an

independent contractor, who was engaged by SGV to render services to SGV's client TMI, and
ultimately to DA on the CECAP project, regarding matters in the field of her special knowledge and
training for a specific period of time. Unlike an ordinary employee, De Raedt received retainer fees and
benefits such as housing and subsistence allowances and medical insurance. De Raedt's services could
be terminated on the ground of end of contract between the DA and TMI, and not on grounds under
labor laws. Though the end of the contract between the DA and TMI was not the ground for the
withdrawal of De Raedt from the CECAP, De Raedt was disengaged from the project upon the
instruction of SGV's client, TMI. Most important of all, SGV did not exercise control over the means and
methods by which De Raedt performed her duties as Sociologist. SGV did impose rules on De Raedt,
but these were necessary to ensure SGV's faithful compliance with the terms and conditions of the
Sub-Consultancy Agreement it entered into with TMI.
 16

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The Court SETS ASIDE the 7 October 2003 Decision
and 17 December 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59916
andREINSTATES the 16 February 2000 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission.

SO ORDERED.

Manila Water Co. vs. Dalumpines [GR No. 175501, October 4, 2010]

Facts:
By virtue of Republic Act No. 8041, otherwise known as the "National Water Crisis Act of 1995," the Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) was given the authority to enter into concession agreements allowing the private
sector in its operations. Petitioner Manila Water Company, Inc. (Manila Water) was one of two private concessionaires contracted
by the MWSS to manage the water distribution system in the east zone of Metro Manila. The east service area included the
following towns and cities: Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Pateros, San Juan, Taguig, Makati, parts of Quezon City and Manila,
Angono, Antipolo, Baras, Binangonan, Cainta, Cardona, Jala-Jala, Morong, Pililla, Rodriguez, Tanay, Taytay, Teresa, and San
Mateo.
Under the concession agreement, Manila Water undertook to absorb the regular employees of MWSS listed by the latter
effective August 1, 1997. Individual respondents, with the exception of Moises Zapatero (Zapatero) and Edgar Pamoraga
(Pamoraga), were among the one hundred twenty-one (121) employees not included in the list of employees to be absorbed by
Manila Water. Nevertheless, Manila Water engaged their services without written contract from August 1, 1997 to August 31,
1997. On September 1, 1997, individual respondents signed a three (3)-month contract to perform collection services on
commission basis for Manila Water's branches in the east zone.
In December 1997, Manila Water entered into a service agreement with respondent First Classic Courier Services, Inc. (FCCSI)
also for its courier needs.
On various dates between May and October 2002, individual respondents were terminated from employment. Manila Water no
longer renewed its contract with FCCSI because it decided to implement a "collectorless" scheme whereby Manila Water
customers would instead remit payments through "Bayad Centers." The aggrieved bill collectors individually filed complaints for
illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, damages, and attorney's fees, with prayer for reinstatement and backwages against
petitioner Manila Water and respondent FCCSI.
Issues:
Whether the CA erred (1) in ruling that an employment relationship exists between respondent bill collectors and petitioner
Manila Water; and (2) in ruling that respondent FCCSI is not a bona fide independent contractor.
Ruling:
"Contracting" or "subcontracting" refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to put out or farm out with a
contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job, work, or service within a definite or predetermined
period, regardless of whether such job, work, or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the
principal.
In legitimate contracting, the trilateral relationship between the parties in these arrangements involves the principal which decides
to farm out a job or service to a contractor or subcontractor, which has the capacity to independently undertake the performance
of the job, work, or service, and the contractual workers engaged by the contractor or subcontractor to accomplish the job, work,
or service.
Job contracting is permissible only if the following conditions are met: 1) the contractor carries on an independent business and
undertakes the contract work on his own account under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method, free
from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to
the results thereof; and 2) the contractor has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work
premises, and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of the business. On the other hand, the Labor Code expressly
prohibits "labor-only" contracting. Article 106 of the Code provides that there is labor-only contracting where the person
supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries,
work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly
related to the principal business of the employer. In such cases, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent
of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and to the same extent as if the latter were directly
employed by him.
Department Order No. 18-02, Series of 2002, enunciates that labor-only contracting refers to an arrangement where the contractor
or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies, or places workers to perform a job, work, or service for a principal.
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.
 17

ReligiousoftheVirginMaryv.NLRC(99)

Theargumenthasnomerit. ASthisCourthasconsistentlyruled,thepowerofcontrolisthemostdecisivefactorindeterminingtheexistenceofanemployer
employeerelationship.InEncyclopediaBritannica(Phils.),Inc.v.NLRC,weheld:

Indeterminingtheexistenceofanemployeremployeerelationshipthefollowingelementsmustbepresent:(1)selectionandengagementoftheemployee;(2)
paymentofwages;(3)powerofdismissal;and(4)thepowertocontroltheemployeesconduct.Oftheabove,controlofemployeesconductiscommonlyregarded
asthemostcrucialanddeterminativeindicatorofthepresenceorabsenceofanemployeremployeerelationship. Underthecontroltest,anemployeremployee
relationshipexistswherethepersonforwhomtheservicesareperformedreservestherighttocontrolnotonlytheendtobeachieved,butalsothemannerandmeans
tobeusedinreachingthatend.

Inthiscase,CDSPBreservedtherighttocontrolandsupervisetheoperationsoftheGirlsDepartment.AlthoughCDSPBactuallyexercisedminimalsupervision
overpetitioner,[it]couldexercisesubstantialsupervisionandcontrolasitdidwhen[it]preterminatedtheAgreement. Therewas,therefore,nobasisinfindingthat
petitionerhadagreaterdegreeofautonomyadindependenceinrunningtheaffairsoftheschool.Thepresenceoftheschooldirector,whosevastpowershave
alreadybeennoted,negatesanysuggestionsorsemblanceofautonomy.

Noristhereanymeritintheclaimthatactualandeffectivecontrolwasexercisedbypetitionersincethedesignationoftheparishpriestasdirectorwasamere
formality,ashedidperformfunctionswhicharepurelyministerialandfigurativeinnature.Timeandagainwehaveheldthatthecontroltestonlyrequiresthe
existenceoftherighttocontrolthemannerofdoingtheworknotnecessarilytheactualexerciseofthepowerbyhim,whichhecandelegate. Indeed,althoughthe
lettersofappointmentweresignedbytheprincipal/representativeofpetitioner,theyborethename/letterheadofCDSPBandclearlyindicatedthereinthatthe
employees were hired as teachers/personnel byCDSPB, andnot by RVM. Moreover, CDSPB itself admits that its name not petitioners appears in the
employeespayrollledgercards.