NAME: Michelle C.

Llaneta-Villamora YEAR/COURSE/SECTION: JD-2A

Case No. 35.

MAM Realty Dev. Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 114787, 2 June 1995

ISSUE: Is Balbastro a service contractor of the petitioner and not subject under the control and
supervision of Mam Realty.

ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER (MAM): Services of Balbastro was contracted by

MAM for the operation of Rancho Estates as a service contractor. His main function
consists mainly of opening and closing on a daily basis the water supply system of the
subdivision in accordance to its water-rationing scheme. Further, he was not under the
control and supervision of MAM for other employees could do his work and he make
use of his free time offering plumbing services to the residents.

ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT (NLRC): An employee-employer relationship had

existed with the petitioner and the private respondent and money claims should be
awarded to private respondent.

SC RULING: No. Balbastro was an employee of MAM Realty.

RATIO: The power of control being given the primacy among other factors in determining the
existence of employer-employee relationship merely calls for the existence of that power
and not the actual exercise thereof. The actual supervision of the employer to the
exercise of his functions is not necessary; it is enough that the employer has the right to
exercise such power. Moreover, Balbastro’s employment was registered with the Social
Security System.

INSTRUCTION LEARNED: The power of control should be given primacy among other
factors determining employer-employee relationship.