Comme Employee is as a natural person who is hired, directly or indirectly, by a natural or juridical person to perform activities related to the

the business of the “hirer” who,

ntary directly or through an agent, supervises or controls the work performance and pays the salary or wage of the “hiree.” In essence, an employee is a person who works
(Azucac for another for a wage computed on time or nontime basis.
ena)
Not every form of control has the effect of establishing employer- employee relationship. A line should be drawn between:
(1) rules that merely serve as guidelines, which only promote the result, and
(2) rules that fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means or methods . These address both the result and the means employed to
achieve the desired result.

The second kind creates employer-employee relationship; the first does not. If the hirer does not control the work performance of the hiree, then the latter is more
likely not an employee. Perhaps he is a contractor.

A contractor is not an employee. He is a businessman, with capital of his own, who operates independently from his client or principal, i.e., the person with whom he
enters into a contract, to accomplish a job, work, or service. The big difference is that an employee is covered by the Labor Code; the contractor is not.
REGUL Regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the
AR employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Article 280 also provides that where a person
EMPLO has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of the nature of the activity performed or where the work is continuous or intermittent, the employment is
YMEN considered regular as long as the activity exists.
T;
FIXED- Thus, there are two kinds of employees under the law:
TERM
EMPLO a) Those engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer
YMEN b) Those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activities which they are
T; employed (ABS CBN v Nazareno)
INDEP
ENDEN Employees under fixed-term contracts cannot be independent contractors because in fixed-term contracts, an employer-employee relationship exists. The test in this
T kind of contract is not the necessity and desirability of the employee’s activities, “but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and
CONTR termination of the employment relationship.” For regular employees, the necessity and desirability of their work in the usual course of the employer’s business are the
ACTOR determining factors. On the other hand, independent contractors do not have employer-employee relationships with their principals. (Fuji Television v Espiritu)

If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent , the law deems the repeated or
continuing performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity in the business. (Begino v ABS-CBN)

Compared to an employee an independent contractor is one who carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work or
service on its own account and under its own responsibility according to its own manner and method, free from the control and direction of the principal in
all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof. Hence, while an independent contractor enjoys independence and
freedom from the control and supervision of his principal, an employee is subject to the employer's power to control the means and methods by which the employee's
work is to be performed and accomplished (Chavez v LRC)
REGUL In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular, the applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
AR V performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The standard, supplied by the law itself, is whether the work undertaken is
NON- necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, a fact that can be assessed by looking into the nature of the services rendered and its relation
REGUL to the general scheme under which the business or trade is pursued in the usual course . It is distinguished from a specific undertaking that is divorced from the normal
AR activities required in carrying on the particular business or trade. However, there may be a situation where an employee’s work is necessary but is not always
desirable in the usual course of business of the employer. In this situation, there is no regular employment. (Fuji Television v Espiritu)
Four kinds of employees, namely: (a) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; (b) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee; (c) seasonal employees or those who work or perform services which are
seasonal in nature, and the employment is for the duration of the season; and (d) casual employees or those who are not regular, project, or seasonal employees.To the
foregoing classification of employee, jurisprudence has added that of contractual or fixed term employee which, if not for the fixed term, would fall under the
category of regular employment in view of the nature of the employee’s engagement, which is to perform activity usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s
business.

If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated or
continuing performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity in the business . Indeed, an employment stops being co-terminous
with specific projects where the employee is continuously re-hired due to the demands of the employer’s business.  When circumstances show, moreover, that
contractually stipulated periods of employment have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, this Court has not hesitated in
striking down such arrangements as contrary to public policy, morals, good customs or public order. The nature of the employment depends, after all, on the nature of
the activities to be performed by the employee, considering the nature of the employer’s business, the duration and scope to be done, and, in some cases, even the
length of time of the performance and its continued existence. In the same manner that the practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not
automatically make all talent contracts valid and compliant with labor law, it has, consequently, been ruled that the assertion that a talent contract exists does not
necessarily prevent a regular employment status. (Begino v ABS CBN)

[t]here is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the aforesaid elements. 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. If the facts of this case vis-à-vis the four-fold test show that an employer-employee relationship existed, we then determine the status
of Arlene’s employment, i.e., whether she was a regular employee. (Fuji Television v Espiritu)

For a valid fixed-period employment to be valid, it must be shown that it was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon the parties. It should be that the employer and the
employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance by the employer over the employee. (Dumpit-Murillo v CA)