SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN, INC. and/or ESTANISLAO AGBAY, Petitioners, vs.

JESUS J. COMING, Respondent.

Facts:
South East International Rattan, Inc. (SEIRI) hired Jesus Coming (Coming) as Sizing Machine Operator. His
compensation was on “pakiao” basis but later on he was paid weekly.
Coming was dismissed from work after many years of service without lawful cause. He was told that the
company is not doing well and he will be called back to work only if they need his services again. He did
not receive any call from the company almost a year after his termination.
He filed a complaint before the regional arbitration branch.
SEIRI denied existence of employer-employee relationship with Coming and stressed that he was not
included in the list of employees submitted to Social Security System (SSS) and his name does not
appear in the payrolls and pay envelope records.

Issue: Does employer-employee relationship exist?

Control Test
Jurisprudence in the case of Tan vs. Lagrama - The fact that a worker was not reported as an employee
to the SSS is not conclusive proof of the absence of employer-employee relationship. Otherwise, an
employer would be rewarded for his failure or even neglect to perform his obligation.

Case History
April 30, 2004 - Labor Arbiter ruled that Coming is a regular employee of SEIRI and that the termination
of his employment was illegal.
July 28, 2005 – NLRC set aside and vacated Labor Arbiter ruling and dismissed the complaint.
February 21, 2008 – Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and ruled that there existed an employer-
employee relationship between petitioners and respondent who was dismissed without just and valid
cause.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

Employer-employee relationship exists.

The Court affirmed the control test applied by the Court of Appeals. The SEIRI’s control over the work of
Coming was manifested on the following facts:

they required him to work within the company premises;

they obliged petitioner to report every day of the week and tasked him to usually perform the same job;
they enforced the observance of definite hours of work from 8 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock in the
afternoon;
the mode of payment of petitioner’s salary was under their discretion, at first paying him on pakiao
basis and thereafter, on daily basis;
they implemented company rules and regulations;
Agbay directly paid petitioner’s salaries and controlled all aspects of his employment and
Petitioner rendered work necessary and desirable in the business of the respondent company.

Non-reporting of a worker as an employee to the SSS or the fact that Coming’s name does not appear in
the payrolls and pay envelopes records negate existence of employer-employee relationship.