1.

NAFLU V NLRC/AJINOMOTO

- Ongbueco was working at Ajinomoto as Staff Eng 1

- Then appointed as Energy Manager

- Ajinomoto deemed it not to provide salary increase as the designation did not entail additional
responsibilities

- However Ong filed complaint for underpayment and claiming his promotion entitled him salary
increase

ISSUE: WON Ong is entitled

HELD:

- No. He was promoted but was merely given functional title as 'energy manager' to comply with BP 73

- If indeed he was promoted in rank, it does not necessarily follow that he is entitled to an increase

- Not all promotions may be accompanied by corresponding increase notwithstanding the increase in
duties and responsibilities of the ee

- Also it is a management prerogative

2. INTL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS V QUISUMBING

- Intl school inc. is a domestic educational school who hires both foreign and local teachers

- the school grants certain benefits to foreign hired and paid 25% more than local hires

- P contested this issue during cba negotiations which failed and so they filed notice of strike

ISSUE: WON the grant of higher salaries to foreign hires create racial discrimination

HELD:

- Yes. There was an invalid classification

- There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign hires and local hires

- If an ER accords EES the same position and rank, the presumption is that these ees perform equal work;
legal truism of "equal pay for equal work"

- no evidence that foreign hired performs 25% more efficient than local hires
3. MASING AND SONS DEVT V ROGELIO

- Rogelio filed a case for payment of his retirement benefits wherein the LA held that there was no ER EE
R between Petitioner and Respondent

ISSUE: WON Rogelio remained the company's ee and entitled to benefits

HELD:

- YES. He had substantially established that he had been an ee of Chan and MSDC and that the benefits
under RA 7641 were apart from the retirement benefits that a qualified ee could claim under the SSS
law.

- In case of doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favor of labor in favor of the safety and decent living
of laborer as mandated by Art. 1702 of the Civil Code.

- The Court further rules that in any controversy between laborer and his worker, doubys rrasonably
arisinh from the evidence are resolved in favor of the laborer. So being an ee of MSDC, Rogelio is entitled
to Retirement benefits under art 287 og LC as amended by RA 7641

4. TABAS V CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CO.

- P filed a petition with NLRC for reinstatement and payment of various benefits against California
Manufacturing

- R denied ER EE R since P were ees of Levi Manpower Service - an independent contractor, which signed
to work as promotional merchandiser

- They created supply agreement which provides that California has no control or supervision
whatsoever over Levi's worker w/ respect to how they accomplished their work

ISSUE: WON there is ER EE R between Tabas and California.

HELD:

- YES. The fact that the manpower supply agreement between Levi & Cali. had specifically designated the
former as the ER of P and had absolved the latter from any liability as an ER will not erase either party's
obligations as having an ER EE relation otherwise exists between the workers and either firm.

- Since the agreement was between L & C they alone are bound by it.
5. TAN V LAGRAMA

- Lagrama works for Tan as a painter of billboards

- He was dismissed for having urinating in his working area

- He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

- Tan: Lagrama is an independent contractor and was paid in piece work basis

ISSUE: WON L is an ee of Tan

HELD:

- YES

- Applying the four fold test - the most impt factor is control. He work in designated work area which Tan
prescribed certain rules w/c include observance of cleanliness and hygiene. Tan's control extended not
only to work area but also to Lagrama's work and manner and means by w/c the work shall be
accomplished.

- The payment by result is a method of compensation and does not define relation.

- Furthermore, by stating that he had right to fire him, Tan is in effect acknowledged him to be his ee, for
the right to file is another impt element in ER EE R.

6. OSIAS CORPORAL V NLRC

- P worked as barbers and manicurists in New Look Barbershop owned by Vicente Lao.

- Eventually the children of Lao organized Enteng Co. Inc where it took assets, equips and prop of
barbershop and continued business.

-All of P were allowed to continue working until Apr. 15, 1995 wherein they are informed that the bldg
where the barbershop were located were sold and that services were no longer rendered.

- P filed complaint. Private res averred that P were joint venture partners and were receiving 50%
commission of the amount charged to customers and thus no ER EE R.

ISSUE: WON ER EE R between P and Private res exist.

HELD:
- YES. The court is not convinced that P are independent contractor as they did not carry independent
business. The service of P were engaged by the resp company to attend to the needs to customers in its
barbershop.

- P were not given work assignments in any place other than at work premises of the barbershop owned
by Private R

- Also, P were required to observe rules and regulations of the resp company pertaining among other
things, observance of daily attendance, job performances and regularity of job output

- The nature performed were clearly directly related to private resp business of operating barbershop

- AS TO POWER OF CONTROL: this refers to the existence of power and necessarily to the actual exercise
thereof, nor it is essential for the er to actually supervise the performance of duties of the ee. It is
enough that the er has the right to wield that power.

7. INSULAR LIFE V NLRC

- Insular and Basiao entered into contract by which basiao was authorized to solicit for insurance in
accordance with the rules of company.

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

- The co. terminated the agency manager's contract. B sued the co. And the co. terminated B
engagement on first contract.

ISSUE: WON B us an ee of insular life.

HELD.

- NO. He is a commission agent. The rules and regulations governing the conduct of business merely
served as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the
means or methods. In attaining it, the aim is solely to promote the result, thereby creating no ER EE R.

- Not all form of control that the hiring reserves to himself over the conduct of the party hired in relation
to the services rendered may be accorded the effect og establishing an ER EE R between them in the
legal ot technical sense of term.

8. SONZA V ABS CBN

- Abs cbn signed an agreement with MJMDC wherein Sonza as talent to abs cbn for radio and tv. Abs cbn
agreed to pay his monthly talent fee.
- Sonza later on resigned and filed a complaint alleging abs cbn did not pay his fees and other benefits.

- Abs cbn contended that there was no ER EE R however continued to remit Sonza her monthly talent
fees.

ISSUE: WON there was ER EE R.

HELD:

- NO. Applying the 4FT: Sonza services to co host its television and radio programs are bec of his peculiar
talent, skills and celeb status. Unlike an ordinary ee, he was free to perform the services he undertook to
render in accordance with his own style. Clearly abs did not exercise control over the means and method
of performance of sonza's work.

- The rules in hiring party are just general rules which are merely guidelines towards the achievement of
the mutually desired result.Not all form of control that the hiring reserves to himself over the conduct of
the party hired in relation to the services rendered may be accorded the effect og establishing an ER EE R
between them in the legal ot technical sense of term.

9. SINGER SEWING MACHINE CO. V DRILON

- The respondent union filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of all collectors of the P company.

- Co. opposed the petition on the ground that union members are not ees of the co. but are independent
contractors based on collection agency agreement they signed.

- Respondent contended that they performed the most desirable and necessary activities for the
continuous and effective operation of the business.

ISSUE: WON there is ER EE R exists bet. P and R.

HELD:

- NO. The agreement reveals that designation as collection agent does not create employment
relationship and that applicant shall be considered at all times as independent contractors.

- The collection agent does his work more or less at his own pleasure without a regular daily time frame
imposed on him. The last and most impt element of control test is not satisfied by the terms and
conditions of contract. There is nothing in the agreement which implies control by the company not only
over the end to be achieved but also over means and methods in achieving the end.

10. PAMPLONA PLANTATION CO. INC V TINGHIL

- Pamplona Plantation was organized for taking over the operation of the coconut and sugar plantation
Hacienda Pamplona while Pamplona Leisure Corp. was established for purpose of tourist resorts, hotels,
and inns and other leisure facilities.

- Tinghil et al are members of union Pamplona hired during harvest season of coconut. Said union
conducted a meeting and when manager heard about this, he did not allow resp to worm anymore. Thus
filed an illegal dismissal. The NLRC ruled that only Tinghil can be considered as real party interest as the
other failed to implead Pamplona Plantation Leisure Co. who is an indispensable party and thus no ER EE
R.

ISSUE: WON Respondents are ees of both companies.

HELD:

- YES. The two corporations have identical management, directors, office and payroll. There is no need to
implead the leisure corp because they are one and the same entity

- The principle of piercing of the corporate veil mandates the court to see through the protective shroud
that distinguishes one corporation from a seemingly separate one. The corporate mask may be removed
and the corporate veil pierced when a corporation is the mere alter ego of another. Where badges of
fraud exist, where public convenience is defeated, where a wrong is sought to be justified thereby, or
where a separate corporate identity is used to evade financial obligations to ees or to third parties, the
motion of separate legal entity should be set aside and the factual truth uphold.

- the present case, the corporations have basically the same Incorporators and directors and are headed
by the same official. Both use only one office and one payroll and are under one management. In their
individual Affidavits, respondents allege that they worked under the supervision and control of
Petitioner Bondoc -- the common managing director of both the petitioner-company and the leisure
corporation. Some of the laborers of the plantation also work in the golf course. Thus, the attempt to
make the two corporations appear as two separate entities, insofar as the workers are concerned, should
be viewed as a devious but obvious means to defeat the ends of the law. Such a ploy should not be
permitted to cloud the truth and perpetrate an injustice.

11. ROBLEDO V NLRC

- P were former ees of Bacani Security and Protective Agency (BSPA) owned, and managed by late Felipe
Bacani until he retired the business and BSPA ceased to operate

- Before Bacani died, BASEC was organized wherein Bacani was one of the shareholders.

- The primary purpose was to engage in business of providing security which was the same hire of
business to that of BSPA.
- Thus some P filed a complaint for underpayment, separation pay and other benefits with BSPA claiming
as well that BSPA intentionally retired for expansion of BASEC and to avoid the obligation of BSPA.

ISSUE: WON piercing the corporate veil is applicable

HELD:

- NO. Doctrine of Piercing the veil of corporate entity is used whenever the Court finds that the
corporate fiction is being used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend
crime or to confuse legitimate issues or that the corp is a mere alter ego.

- Piercing the veil of corporate entity means looking thru the corporate form to the individual
stockholders composing it. Here there is no reason to pierce bec there is question that P claims,
assuming it to be valid, are personal liability of the late Felipe Bacani. It is immaterial if he is a
stockholder of BASEC.

12. BEGINO V ABS CBN (2015)

- Abs cbn engaged the services of Petitioners as cameramen, editors or reporters for TV Broadcasting.

- The Talent Contract they signed have exclusivity clause which provides that nothing in there shall be
deemed or construed to establish an ER EE R between parties.

- Later on P filed a complaint for regulation claiming that they worked under control of resp. wherein
they are mandated to wear company IDs, provided necessary equips and informed of what news to be
covered, the routes, and bound by company policy wherein the company denied imposing control as to
how P discharged their duties.

ISSUE: WON P are regular ees.

HELD:

- YES notwithstanding the nomenclature of their talent contracts.

- The test to determine is the reasonable connection between the activity performed by the ee in
relation to the business or trade of the ER.

- It appears that P is subject to the control and supervision of respondents. "Control Test" applies where
the person for whom the services are performed reserves the sight to control not only the end result but
also the manner and means utilized to achieve the same. --- Such that, P were provided equips and
required to comply with company's policy and exclusively clause and prohibitions of the contracts were
likewise indicative of control over them. However the Court finds that such conditions demonstrated
control not only to results of P works but also the means employed to achieve the same.
13. MARIAN NAVARETTE V MANILA INTL (2015)

- MIFFI1 entered into a contract to MBI

- MBI hired Navarette and assigned as temporary project ee to MIFFI. Fixed period of 3 mos and worked
among MIFFI regular ees and used equipments and was supervised by ees of MIFF.

- Second and third contract has been signed.

- MBI called a meeting wherein they were ask to sign minutes of hearing/agreement and N found out
that the contents were erroneous. He got angry caused to throw the documents. He eventually illegally
dismissed

ISSUE: Whether or not Marian is an employee; Whether or not MBI is a labor-only contractor

HELD:

- Navarette is MBIs employee for it is a legitimate job contractor. MBI is a legitimate labor contractor and
is the er of navarette.

- application of the four-fold test in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship,

thus: (1) selection and engagement; (2) payment of wages; (3) power to dismiss; and (4) power of
control over the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.

- In a job contracting arrangement, the four-fold test must be satisfied by the contractor or
subcontractor. Otherwise, it is the principal that shall be considered as the employer.

Labor-only contracting exists when: (1) the person supplying workers to the purported principal does
not have substantial capital or investments in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises,
among others; and (2) the workers recruited and placed by such person/entity perform activities which
are directly related to the principal business of the alleged principal. Finding that a contractor is engaged
in labor-only contracting is then equivalent to declaring that there exists an employer-employee
relationship between the supposed principal and the employee of the purported contractor.

- Manlangit, et al. were project employees of MBI, whose employments were coterminous with the
service agreement between MBI and MIFFI/MLCI.

14. ST LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER V SANCHEZ (2015)

- Sanchez was hired by Petitioner as staff nurse

- She was eventually dismissed for committing theft of company's medical items which was in violation
of their Code of Discipline

ISSUE: WON Sanchez was illegally dismissed

HELD:

- NO. She was dismissed for a valid cause.

- Among the ers prerogative is the right to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the
proper conduct of its business or concerns, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said
rules and to assure the same would be complied.

15. LEUS V ST SCHOLASTICAS COLLEGE (2015)

- Petitioner was hired by Respondent

- She got pregnant out of wedlock which leads to her dismissal stating that she was terminated due to
serious misconduct and the school finds her pregnancy out of wedlock unacceptable to the moral
principle of that SSCW.

ISSUE: WON Petitioner was validly dismissed.

HELD:

- NO.

- Management prerogative is the freedom to regulate according to its own discretion and judgment, all
aspects of employment, including hiring, working assignments, methods, time, place, and manner of
work, process to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, lay off of workers and
discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. The exercise of MP however is not absolute as it must be
exercised in good faith and with due regards to the rights of labor.

- In this case, there is no cause to dismiss P. Her conduct is not considered disgraceful or immoral.
Furthermore, the respondents even admitted at the time of controversy, SSWC does not have any policy
or rule against an ee engaging in premarital sexual relations.

16. CENTRO PROJECT MANPOWER SERVICES V NALUIS (2015)

- Centro Project engaged Naluis to work abroad as a plumber in Northern Marianas which would last for
12 months, and would commence upon his arrival in Northern Marianas.

- On June 3, 1997, the Department of Labor and Immigration of Northern Mariana Islands issued an
Authorization for Entry (AE) in his favor.

- On September 3, 1997, Centro Project and Naluis executed an addendum to the primary Employment
Contract to make the start of his employment effective from his departure at the point of origin instead
of his arrival in Northern Marianas.
- However Naluis left for Northern Mariana on September 13, 1997, the date of his actual deployment,
and his employment continued until his repatriation to the Philippines on June 3, 1998 allegedly due to
the expiration of the employment contract. Not having completed 12 months of work, he filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against Centro Project.

- Centro Project submits that the AE categorically fixed the period of stay of Naluis; and that even the
primary Employment Contract clearly set the date for its expiration.

ISSUE: Whether or not he was illegally dismissed following the date of the AE.

HELD:

- YES

- The AE thereby clearly indicated that the date of May 13, 1998 appearing thereon referred only to the
expiration of the document itself. Centro Project stretched its interpretation to bolster its contention
that May 13, 1998 was the limit of stay for Naluis in Northern Marianas. The interpretation is
unacceptable, for item number 3 of the AE even recognized any employment period if the AE was issued
for the purpose of employment. This meant that contrary to the position of Centro Project there was no
clear and categorical entry in the AE to the effect that the AE limited his stay in Northern Marianas.

- It is fundamental that in the interpretation of contracts of employment, doubts are generally resolved
in favor of the worker. It is imperative to uphold this rule herein. Hence, any doubt or vagueness in the
provisions of the contract of employment should have been interpreted and resolved in favor of Naluis.

17. REYES V GLAUCOMA RESEARCH (2015)

- Petitioner alleged that he was hired by respondent until one day he wasn't allowed to work at the
premises

- Respondents contended that upon petitioner's representation that he is an expert in corporate

organizational structure and management affairs, they engaged his services as a consultant or adviser yet
there is no employer-employee relationship between them because respondents had no control over
petitioner in terms of working hours as he reports for work at anytime of the day and leaves as he
pleases; respondents also had no control as to the manner in which he performs his alleged duties as
consultant.

ISSUE: Whether or not ER EE exist.

HELD:

- NO. Etched in an unending stream of cases are four standards in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, namely: (a) the manner of selection and engagement of the putative
employee; (b) the mode of payment of wages; (c) the presence or absence of power of dismissal; and,
(d) the presence or absence of control of the putative employee's conduct. Most determinative among
these factors is the so-called "control test."

- Respondents' power to approve or reject the organizational plans drawn by petitioner cannot be the
control contemplated in the "control test." It is but logical that one who commissions another to do a
piece of work should have the right to accept or reject the product. The important factor to consider in
the "control test" is still the element of control over how the work itself is done, not just the end result
thereof.

- In the present case, P was never subject to definite working hours. He never denied that he goes to
work and leave therefrom as he pleases. Well settled is the rule that where a person who works for
another performs his job more or less at his own pleasure, in the manner he sees fit, not subject to
definite hours or conditions of work, and is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not
the amount thereof, no employer-employee relationship exists.

- Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality test in determining
whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. Under this test, the economic
realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the
totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties. This is
especially appropriate when, as in this case, there is no written agreement or contract on which to base
the relationship. In our jurisdiction, the benchmark of economic reality in analyzing possible
employment relationships for purposes of applying the Labor Code ought to be the economic
dependence of the worker on his employer.

In the instant case, as shown by the resume of petitioner, he concurrently held consultancy positions
with the Manila International Airport Authority (from 04 March 2001 to September 2003 and from 01
November 2004 up to the present) and the Anti-Terrorist Task Force for Aviation and Air Transportation
Sector (from 16 April 2004 to 30 June 2004) during his stint with the Eye Referral Center (from 01 August
2003 to 29 April 2005). Accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioner was wholly dependent on
respondent company.

18. TESORO V METRO MANILA (2014)

- Petitioners used to work as salesmen for respondents on their sister company 'Bandag' until they quit
their jobs and entered into separate service franchise agreements (SFA) with Bandag.

- They began defaulting on their periodic liquidations of their operational expenses in relation yo
revolving funds Bandag provided them.

- Consequently Bandag terminated their SFA

- Angry, they filed constructive dismissal

ISSUE: WON Petitioners remained ee of Bandag under franchise scheme it entered.

HELD:

- NO. They ceases to be ee when they began operating their respective franchise.

- Apply the four fold test: The impt factor to consider is still the element of control over how the work
itself is done, not just the end result which in the case at bar, Bandag does not anymore exercise control
over petitioners. Their commitment to abide by Bandag's Policy decisions and implementing rules as
franchisers does not make them its ees.

19. TENAZA V R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT (2014)

- Tenazas, Francisco, Endraca filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport
and/or Romualdo Villegas (Romualdo) and Andy Villegas (Andy) (respondents)

- Tenazas alleged that the taxi unit assigned to him was sideswiped by another vehicle, causing cost of
repair was estimated at P500.00. Upon reporting the incident to the company, he was scolded by
respondents Romualdo and Andy and was told to leave the garage for he is already fired.

- Francisco, averred that his dismissal was brought unfounded suspicion that he was organizing a labor
union.

- Endraca, for his part, alleged that his dismissal was instigated by an occasion when he fell short of the
required boundary for his taxi unit. He related that before he was dismissed, he brought his taxi unit to
an auto shop for an urgent repair which charged the amount of P700.00 for the repair services and the
replacement parts. As a result, he was not able to meet his boundary for the day. Upon returning to the
company garage and informing the management of the incident, his drivers license was confiscated and
was told to settle the deficiency in his boundary first before his license will be returned to him. He was
no longer allowed to drive a taxi unit despite his persistent pleas.

ISSUE: WON they are they all employees of company

HELD:

- The Court ruled that ER EE R exist as to Teraza and Endraca but ruled otherwise on Francisco.

- In determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has

consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit: (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 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.
- Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. Identification cards,
cash vouchers, social security registration, appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls,
organization charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence of employee status.

- The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. In this case, however,
Francisco failed to present any proof substantial enough to establish his relationship with the
respondents. He failed to present documentary evidence like attendance logbook, payroll, SSS record or
any personnel file that could somehow depict his status as an employee. Here, Francisco simply relied on
his allegation that he was an employee of the company without any other evidence supporting his claim.
Unfortunately for him, a mere allegation in the position paper is not tantamount to evidence.

20. SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN INC V COMING (2014)

- Respondent alleged that he was hired by petitioners as Sizing Machine Operator with compensation
was on "pakiao" basis

- his employment was interrupted as he was told by petitioners to resume work in two months time

- after two months he reported back to work upon order of management but was told that he will be
terminated because the company is not doing well financially and that he would be called back to work
only if they need his services again but they didn't call for almost a year

- On their part, petitioners denied having hired respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or not he is an employee

HELD:

- To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence has invariably adhered

to the four-fold test, to wit: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of
wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees conduct, or the so-called
"control test."

- As to the "control test", the following facts indubitably reveal that respondents wielded control over
the work performance of petitioner, to wit: (1) they required him to work within the company premises;
(2) they obliged petitioner to report every day of the week and tasked him to usually perform the same
job; (3) they enforced the observance of definite hours of work from 8 oclock in the morning to 5 oclock
in the afternoon; (4) the mode of payment of petitioners salary was under their discretion, at first paying
him on pakiao basis and thereafter, on daily basis; (5) they implemented company rules and regulations;
(6) [Estanislao] Agbay directly paid petitioners salaries and controlled all aspects of his employment and
(7) petitioner rendered work necessary and desirable in the business of the respondent company.

- In any controversy between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence are
resolved in favor of the laborer.
- As a regular employee, respondent enjoys the right to security of tenure under Article 279 of the Labor
Code and may only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause, otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal.

21. ROYALE HOMES MARKETING CORP V ALCANTARA (2014)

- Alcantara (former marketing director)filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal. Alcantara alleged that he is
a regular employee of Royale Homes since he is performing tasks that are necessary and desirable to its
business

- Royale Homes vehemently denied that Alcantara is its employee. It argued that the appointment paper
of Alcantara is clear that it engaged his services as an independent sales contractor for a fixed term of
one year only. He never received any salary, 13th month pay, overtime pay or holiday pay from Royale
Homes as he was paid purely on commission basis. In addition, Royale Homes had no control on how
Alcantara would accomplish his tasks and responsibilities as he was free to solicit sales at any time and
by any manner which he may deem appropriate and necessary. He is even free to recruit his own sales
personnel to assist him in pursuance of his sales target.

ISSUE: WON Alcantra is an independent contractor or an employee

HELD:

- He is an independent contractor. The juridical relationship of the parties based on their written contract
that they signed and executed in pursuance of their mutual agreement. In this case, the contract, duly
signed and not disputed by the parties, conspicuously provides that "no employer-employee relationship
exists between" Royale Homes and Alcantara, as well as his sales agents. It is clear that they did not want
to be bound by employer-employee relationship at the time of the signing of the contract.

- Not every form of control is indicative of employer-employee relationship. A person who performs
work for another and is subjected to its rules, regulations, and code of ethics does not necessarily
become an employee. As long as the level of control does not interfere with the means and methods of
accomplishing the assigned tasks, the rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party do not
amount to the labor law concept of control that is indicative of employer-employee relationship.

- In this case, the Court agrees with Royale Homes that the rules, regulations, code of ethics, and
periodic evaluation alluded to by Alcantara do not involve control over the means and methods by which
he was to performhis job.