P.

Reynaldo Cano Chua vs CA, SSC GR NO 125837

Jurisprudence:
The existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties can easily be
determined by the application of the "control test, that is, the power of control with regard to the
means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.

Facts:
In 1985, Private respondents filed a complaint against herein petitioner, owner of Prime Mover
Construction Development for failure to report them to the SSS for compulsory coverage in
violation of the Social Security Law.
 
Private respondents alleged that they were all regular employees, with some hired as early as
1977 and assigned by petitioner in his various construction projects, and that they were illegally
dismissed by herein petitioner prompting them also to file a complaint with NLRC.
 
SSC ruled in favor of private respondents relying on the NLRC case ruling that petitioners are
regular employees and ordered petitioner to remit the contributions plus penalties and charges.
 
On Appeal, CA ruled in favor of private respondents.
 
Hence, this petition.
 
Petitioner contends that said respondents were project employees. As such, no employer-
employee relation existed and private respondents are not entitled to coverage under the Social
Security Act.
 
Issue:
Whether or not private respondents are project employees, and as a result thereof, there exists no
employee-employer relationship, and respondents are not entitled to compulsory coverage.
 

Held:
No. The Court held that respondents are regular employers and employee-employer relations
exist between parties. Hence, respondents are entitled to coverage.
 
The Court has held that the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties
can easily be determined by the application of the "control test, that is, the power of control with
regard to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.
 
Applying the control test, it reveals that petitioner has control over the results of the work done,
as well as the means and methods by which the same were accomplished by private respondents.

Hence, there exists an employer-employee relationship and private respondents are entitled to
coverage under the Social Security Act. As a result, petitioner is liable for the said contributions
including penalty and charges.