EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

I. WHAT DETERMINES THE OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

a. by operation of law
b. not by parties' agreement
c. not dependent on compensation

Art. 219
Employer- includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or
indirectly. Shall not include any labor ord or its ofcrs except acting as an
employer

Employee- includes any person in the employ of an employer

I. TEST IN DETERMINING EER

a. hiring- selection, engagement
b. wages - payment of compensation
c. firing termination of relationship
d. control - most important element
- should not merely relate to the mutually desirabkle result intended by the
contractual relationship
-must have the nature of dictating the means or method to be employed in attaining
the result, or of fixing the methodology and of binding or restricting the party
hired to the use of these means (tongko v. Manufacturers Life insurance)

Control
over the work v. over the result
over the result - no control

PBA Referees not employees

- the contractial stipulations do not pertain to, much less dictate, how and when
the referees will blow the whistle and make calls
- they merely serve as rules of conduct or guidelines in order to maintain the
integrity of the PBL
- no control
(Bermante v. PBA)

*ART 295 IS NOT THE BASIS OF EER; BUT TEST FOR REGULAR EMPLOYMENT
-the provision of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless
of oral agreements, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer.

DUAL JURIDICAL RELATIONSHIP

-under the boundary-hulog scheme incorporated in the kasunduan, a dual juridical
relationship was created between petitioner and respondent; that of employer-
employee and vendor-vendee. The kasunduan did not extinguish the employee-employer
relationship of the parties extant before the execution of said deed.(villamaria v.
CA) the 2 juridical relationship co-exist

OFFICER V. EMPLOYEE
-a position must be expressly mentioned in the BY-LAWS in order to be considered as
a corporate officers
- the criteria for distinguishing between corporate officers who may be ousted from
office at will, on one hand, and ordinary corporate employees who may only be
terminated for just cause, on the other hand, do not depend on the nature of the
services performed, but on the manner of creation of the office. (matling
industrial v. coros)
Two tier test:
officer v. employee
1. the status or relationship of the parties
2. the nature of the question that is the subject of the controversy

"TALENTS"
-production assistants, drivers/cameramen, security guards are not talents but
employees

APPERENTICE
apprenticeship- practical traning on the job supplemented by related theoretical
instruction
-apprentice- worker who is covered bey a written apprenticeship agreement with an
individual employer or any of the entities recognized under this chapter
- without compensation - SOLE may authorize the hiring of apprentices without
compensation whose ojt is required by the school or training program curriculum or
as a requisite for graduation or board examination.
-second apprenticeship agreement for a second skill which was not even mentioned in
the agreement is a violation of the LC's implementing rules

LEARNERS
- persons hired as trainees in semi-skilled and other industrial occupations which
are non-apprenticeable which may be learned through practical training on the job
in a relatively short period of time which shall not exceed three months

WOMEN WORKERS permitted or suffered to work with or without compensation in any

night club, cockatail lounge, massage clinic, bar or similar establishment, under
the effective control or supervision of the employer for a substantial period of
time shall be considered as an employee of such establishment