Chavez v.

NLRC
448 SCRA 478
Facts

1.
2.
1.

1.
2.
3.
4.
2.
1.
2.
3.

Petitioner Pedro Chavez was hired as truck driver of Private Respondent Supreme Packaging, Inc.
Chavez requested to avail himself of the benefits that a regular employees were receiving but his request was denied
Chavez filed before NLRC a complaint for regularization. Later on he was dismissed by SPI
He later on filed an amended complaint for illegal dismissal
Issue
Held

W/N there existed an employer-employee relationship between SPI and Chavez?

W/N Chavez is an independent contractor?

Yes, there existed an employer-employee relationship between SPI and Chavez

Applying four-fold test, all elements are present
1. selection and engagement of the employee
- it was SPI who engaged the services of Chavez without intervention of third party
2. payment of wages
- that petitioner was paid on per trip basis is not significant, this is merely a method of computing compensation and not a basis for determining the
existence or absence of er-ee relationship
3. power of dismissal
- power to dismiss was inherent in the fact that they engaged the services of Chavez as driver
4. power to control employee's conduct
- an employee is subject to employer's power to control the means and method by which the work is to be performed while an independent contractor is
free from control and supervision of employer
* Manifestation of Power of Control of SPI to Chavez
truck was owned by SPI
express instruction in the method of delivery
instruction on parking of delivery truck
instruction on when and where Chavez would perform his task by issuing to him gate passes and routing slips
Chavez is not and Independent Contractor
* Proof that Chavez is not an Independent Contractor
Chavez did not own the truck
SPI did not have substantial capitalization or investment
Delivery was exclusively done for SPI for 10years
* Er-Ee Relationship cannot be negated by expressly repudiating it in contract and providing therein that the employee is an independent contractor.
Indeed the employment status of the person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what parties say it should be.