YUSOPH, HANA T.

LABOR LAW II- ARELLANO

1. CORPORAL, ST. VS. NLRC AND LAO ENTENG

G.R NO. 129315

DOCTRINE: the existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the

four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of
wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer's power to control the
employee's conduct

FACTS: The petitioners, who worked as barbers and manicurists at New Look Barber
Shop, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the respondents, Lao Enteng
Company, Inc. and/or Trinidad Lao Ong. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
dismissed the complaint, stating there was no employer-employee relationship. The
petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: The main issue was whether there was an employer-employee relationship
between the petitioners and the respondents.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that they were
indeed employees of the respondent company. The decisions of the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC were set aside, and the respondents were ordered to pay the petitioners
their 13th month pay and separation pay. The Court found that the petitioners were
not carrying on an independent business but were performing work necessary and
desirable in the business of the respondent company. The respondent company had
control over the petitioners' work performance, took over the assets of the New Look
Barber Shop, continuously paid the wages of the petitioners for fifteen years, reported
the petitioners as their workers, and paid their SSS contributions. The barber shop
was closed due to serious losses, entitling the petitioners to separation pay and 13th
month pay.

This case emphasizes the importance of the four-fold test in determining the existence
of an employer-employee relationship: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the
employer's power to control the employee's conduct. It appears that all these elements
were present in this case.
2. BEGINO VS. ABS-CBN

G.R NO. 199166

Villafuerte, Begino, Del Valle, Sumayao, and Avila-Llorin vs. ABS-CBN

Corporation

DOCTRINE: Nature of one's work, and not the title or designation given by the
employer, determines whether one is a regular employee or not

FACTS: ABS-CBN Corporation employed the petitioners in various roles such as

cameramen/editors and reporters. The petitioners were given Talent Contracts and
Project Assignment Forms. They claimed to be regular employees and filed a
complaint against ABS-CBN for regularization and underpayment of benefits. ABS-
CBN argued that the petitioners were independent contractors.

ISSUE: The main issue was whether the petitioners are regular employees of ABS-
CBN entitled to benefits.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them as regular
employees of ABS-CBN.The Court applied the four-fold test to determine the existence
of an employer-employee relationship. The petitioners performed functions necessary
and essential to ABS-CBN's business and were subject to the control and supervision
of the company. They were required to wear company IDs and were informed about
the news to be covered each day. The petitioners were subjected to evaluation and
were not paid the labor standard benefits given to regular employees. The Court
rejected ABS-CBN's argument that the petitioners were engaged as talents and not
regular employees. The exclusivity clause and prohibitions in the Talent Contracts and
Project Assignment Forms did not negate the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. The Court reinstated the decision of the NLRC, declaring the petitioners
as regular employees of ABS-CBN. ABS-CBN was ordered to pay the petitioners the
various labor standard benefits. The issue of reinstatement was left to be determined
in a separate case.

This case emphasizes the importance of the four-fold test in determining the existence
of an employer-employee relationship and the rights of workers to labor standard
benefits.
 3. OROZCO VS. PDI
G.R. 155207

Case Name: Orozco vs. Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) and Leticia Jimenez-
Magsanoc

DOCTRINE: requirements for perfecting an appeal, including the posting of a cash or

surety bond when a judgment involves a monetary award, must be strictly followed,
but exceptions may be made when warranted by the circumstances.

FACTS: Orozco was engaged as a columnist by PDI. She filed a complaint against
PDI and its editor-in-chief, Magsanoc, for illegal dismissal, underpayment, non-
payment of allowance, separation pay, retirement pay, service incentive leave pay,
13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, discrimination in pay and for
attorney’s fees. PDI argued that Orozco was not an employee of the newspaper. The
Labor Arbiter ruled that Orozco had been illegally dismissed and was indeed an
employee of PDI. PDI appealed the decision but did not lodge a cash or surety bond
in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

ISSUE: The main issue was whether Orozco is an employee of PDI entitled to benefits.

HELD: The Supreme Court did not give due course to the petition and ordered the
Labor Arbiter to clarify the amount of the award due to Orozco. PDI was ordered to
post the requisite bond in accordance with Article 223 of the Labor Code.The Court
noted that while the requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed,
the law does admit of exceptions when warranted by the circumstances. However, the
Court was not prepared to give due course to the petition and make a pronouncement
on the weighty issue until the law has been duly complied with and the requisite appeal
bond duly paid by PDI.

This case emphasizes the importance of complying with the procedural requirements
for perfecting an appeal, including the posting of a cash or surety bond when a
judgment involves a monetary award.
4. SONZA VS. ABS-CBN
G.R 138051

DOCTRINE: The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by

the level of control the hiring party has over the worker's performance of his or her
duties, not merely on the basis of exclusivity of the service provided.

The court applied the control test and found that ABS-CBN did not exercise control
over the means and methods of Mr. Sonza's work, thus he was deemed an
independent contractor, not an employee. The court clarified that being an exclusive
talent does not automatically make one an employee. Even an independent contractor
can validly provide his services exclusively to the hiring party.

This doctrine is significant as it provides a clear guideline for determining the nature
of the relationship between a broadcast station and its talents, and it underscores the
importance of the control test in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.

FACTS: ABS-CBN, a broadcasting corporation, signed an agreement with Mel and

Jay Management Development Corporation to exclusively use the services of Mr.
Sonza, a talent for radio and television. Later, Mr. Sonza decided to end the agreement
and filed a complaint for payment of labor benefits. ABS-CBN argued that Mr. Sonza
was not their employee.

ISSUE: The issue was whether Mr. Sonza was an employee of ABS-CBN.

RULING: The court said no. They used the control test, which looks at how much
control the hiring party has over the worker. The more control, the more likely the
worker is an employee. But in this case, ABS-CBN didn't have control over how Mr.
Sonza did his job. They were only concerned with the quality of the shows.

The court also said that just because Mr. Sonza was an exclusive talent didn't mean
he was an employee. Even independent contractors can work exclusively for one
company. So, in the end, the court decided that Mr. Sonza was an independent
contractor, not an employee of ABS-CBN.
5. TENZAS VS. VILLEGAS TAXI

G.R 192298

DOCTRINE: legal principles that may apply:

1. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the party making the allegations.
In this case, Francisco failed to present substantial evidence to establish his
employment relationship with the respondents, resulting in the dismissal of his claims.

2. Substantial Evidence: In order to prove a claim, it is necessary to present

substantial evidence. Francisco's failure to provide attendance logs, payroll records,
or testimonial evidence weakened his case and led to the dismissal of his claims.

3. Employer-Employee Relationship: The existence of an employer-employee

relationship is crucial in determining the rights and obligations of the parties involved.
In this case, the Court found that there was no substantial evidence to prove
Francisco's employment relationship with the respondents.

FACTS:

Three taxi drivers, Tenazas, Francisco, and Endraca, filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against R. Villegas Taxi Transport. Tenazas claimed he was fired after his
taxi was involved in an accident. Francisco alleged he was dismissed due to
suspicions of him organizing a labor union. Endraca claimed he was dismissed for not
meeting his daily boundary due to taxi repairs.

ISSUE:

The main issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the
drivers and the taxi company, and if the drivers were illegally dismissed.

HELD:

The court ruled that Francisco failed to provide substantial evidence to prove his
employment with the taxi company, thus his claim was dismissed.

As for Tenazas and Endraca, the court found that their dismissal was illegal and
ordered their reinstatement. However, the court also stated that a mere claim of
strained relations due to termination is not enough to warrant separation pay. The filing
of a complaint does not necessarily mean that relations between the parties are
strained.

The court emphasized the importance of substantial evidence in proving an employer-

employee relationship and the legality of dismissal. It also highlighted that claims of
strained relations due to termination must be supported by evidence, not just mere
allegations.
6. Oscar Villamaria VS.CA:

DOCTRINE: The boundary-hulog scheme, as established in the Kasunduan

agreement, does not change the employer-employee relationship between the
owner/operator and the driver. The owner/operator retains control and supervision
over the driver's conduct, and the provision of an identification card further supports
the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

FACTS:

● Oscar Villamaria and VS.CA entered into an agreement called the Kasunduan.

● The Kasunduan established a boundary-hulog scheme, where Oscar

Villamaria, as the owner/operator, would retain control and supervision over the driver,
and the driver's earnings would be remitted to the owner/operator minus the excess of
the boundary.

ISSUES:

● The main issue was whether the relationship between Oscar Villamaria and
the driver should be considered as employer-employee or lessor-lessee.

HELD:

● The court held that the relationship between Oscar Villamaria and the driver
was that of employer-employee, not lessor-lessee.

● The boundary-hulog scheme did not change the employer-employee

relationship.

● The owner/operator retained control and supervision over the driver's conduct.

● The provision of an identification card further supported the existence of an

employer-employee relationship.

In summary, the court ruled that the boundary-hulog scheme did not alter the
employer-employee relationship between Oscar Villamaria and the driver, and the
owner/operator maintained control and supervision over the driver.
7. Hacienda Leddy v. Paquito Villegas

DOCTRINE:

If an employee has been performing a job for at least one year, even if the performance
is not continuous or intermittent, and the job is necessary or indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the employer, the employee is considered a regular employee.
The determination of whether employment is regular or casual is based on the nature
of the activities performed in relation to the business or trade, considering all
circumstances, including the length of time of its performance and its continued
existence. This is to protect the tenurial interest of workers who may be denied their
rights and benefits by employers through lopsided agreements or arrangements.

FACTS:

● Paquito Villegas worked for Hacienda Leddy for over 20 years, performing
various tasks on the farm.

● Hacienda Leddy claimed that Villegas was paid on a piece-rate basis without
supervision.

ISSUES:

● Is Villegas considered a regular employee or a casual employee?

● Are regular employees entitled to certain rights and benefits?

HELD:

● The court ruled that Villegas is a regular employee because of his long period
of employment and the repeated need for his services.

● Regular employees are entitled to the rights and benefits due to them,
regardless of the manner of hiring and payment.
8. LEGEND HOTEL VS REALUYO

G.R. No. 153511 decided on July 18, 2012.

DOCTRINE: The doctrine of employer-employee relationship and retrenchment were

applied.

The doctrine of employer-employee relationship refers to the legal relationship

between an employer and an employee, where the employer has the power to control
and direct the work of the employee. In this case, the court applied this doctrine to
determine whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Legend Hotel
and Realuyo. The court found that the hotel had the power of selection and control
over Realuyo's work as a pianist, establishing the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.

The doctrine of retrenchment refers to the reduction of personnel or workforce by an

employer due to economic reasons, such as to prevent losses or to minimize expenses.
In this case, the hotel claimed that it retrenched Realuyo due to cost-cutting measures.
However, the court applied the doctrine of retrenchment to assess the validity of the
hotel's claim. The court found that the hotel failed to provide sufficient and convincing
evidence of substantial losses and the necessity of retrenchment, leading to the
conclusion that the retrenchment was not valid.

These two doctrines were crucial in determining the outcome of the case and the rights
and obligations of the parties involved.

FACTS: The respondent, Realuyo, worked as a pianist at the Legend Hotel's Tanglaw
Restaurant from September 1992. He initially received a rate of P400.00 per night,
which later increased to P750.00 per night. The hotel fixed his performance time from
7:00 pm to 10:00 pm, three to six times a week. Realuyo claimed that he was required
to conform to the restaurant's motif and was subjected to certain rules and privileges.
The hotel notified him on July 9, 1999, that his services would no longer be required
starting July 30, 1999, due to cost-cutting measures.

ISSUES: The main issues discussed in the case were as follows:

1. Whether a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA) is proper.

2. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.

3. Whether the retrenchment as a ground for the respondent's dismissal is valid.

HELD: The court held the following:

1. A petition for certiorari to the CA is proper to raise factual issues and review
the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
 2. An employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. The hotel had
the power of selection when it entered into a service contract with the respondent, and
the hotel controlled the respondent's work as a pianist.

3. The retrenchment as a ground for the respondent's dismissal is not valid. The
employer failed to provide sufficient and convincing evidence of substantial losses and
the necessity of retrenchment.

In summary, the court ruled that the petition for certiorari is proper, an employer-
employee relationship exists, and the retrenchment was not valid.
9. Bright Maritime Corporation (BMC) and Desiree P. Tenorio vs. Ricardo B.
Fantonia

DOCTRINE: The principle of illegal dismissal and breach of contract.

Under the doctrine of illegal dismissal, when an employer prevents an employee from
joining a vessel without valid reason, it constitutes illegal dismissal. In this case, BMC
prevented Fantonial from leaving for Germany on the scheduled date of his departure,
despite him being declared medically fit to work. The court ruled that BMC's act of
preventing Fantonial from joining the vessel amounted to a breach of contract and
constituted illegal dismissal.

Additionally, the court applied the doctrine of breach of contract. When an employer
breaches a contract and illegally dismisses an employee, the employee is entitled to
damages. In this case, the court ordered BMC to pay Fantonial actual damages, moral
damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees as a remedy for the illegal
dismissal and breach of contract.

In summary, the doctrines of illegal dismissal and breach of contract were applied in
this case to protect the rights of the employee and hold the employer accountable for
their actions.

FACTS:

● Bright Maritime Corporation (BMC) and its president, Desiree P. Tenorio, are
the petitioners.
● Ricardo B. Fantonial is the respondent.
● Fantonial was hired by BMC as a boatswain on the M/V AUK.
● The contract stated Fantonial's salary and benefits.
● Fantonial was declared fit to work by BMC's medical clinic.
● BMC prevented Fantonial from leaving due to alleged defects in his medical
certificate.
● Fantonial was later declared fit to work by the same doctor.
● Fantonial filed a complaint against BMC for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE:
● Is BMC liable for illegally dismissing Fantonial?
HELD:
● The Court of Appeals found BMC liable for illegally dismissing Fantonial.
● The Medical Certificate proved Fantonial's fitness to work.
● The employment contract was approved by the POEA.
● There was no valid reason for BMC to prevent Fantonial from leaving.
● BMC's act constituted a breach of contract and illegal dismissal.
● BMC was ordered to pay damages and attorney's fees to Fantonial
10. PARAYDAY VS. SHOGUN SHIPPING CO

DOCTRINE:

The doctrine applied in this case was the doctrine of regular employment. This doctrine
recognizes that an employer-employee relationship exists when the work performed
by an individual is necessary or desirable to the business of the employer and when
the individual has been engaged to perform such work for a certain period of time. In
this case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of regular employment to determine
whether Pedrito R. Parayday and Jaime Reboso were regular employees of Shogun
Shipping Co., Inc. The Court found that Parayday and Reboso had established their
regular employment status with Shogun Shipping Co., Inc. based on the evidence
presented, such as their identification cards and payslips.

FACTS: Pedrito R. Parayday and Jaime Reboso filed a complaint against Shogun
Shipping Co., Inc. They claimed that they were illegally dismissed and not paid enough.
They provided evidence like ID cards and payslips to support their claims.

ISSUES: The main issue was whether Parayday and Reboso were regular employees
of Shogun Shipping Co., Inc. or just occasional helpers. Another issue was whether
there was a change of corporate name from Oceanview to Shogun Ships.

HELD: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Parayday and Reboso, declaring them to be
regular employees and ordering their reinstatement with full backwages. The National
Labor Relations Commission affirmed this decision. However, the Court of Appeals
reversed the decision, stating that the evidence presented by Parayday and Reboso
was insufficient. The Supreme Court later granted the petition of Parayday and Reboso,
reinstating the decision of the NLRC. The Supreme Court held that Parayday and
Reboso were indeed regular employees and their dismissal was illegal. They also
rejected other arguments raised by Shogun Shipping Co., Inc. and awarded
backwages to Parayday and Reboso.
11. MARIO M. FELICILDA VS. MANCHESTEVE H. UY

DOCTRINE:

The Principle of substantive and procedural due process in employment termination.

Substantive due process requires that the dismissal be based on a just or authorized
cause under the Labor Code. This means that the employer must have a valid reason
for terminating the employee's employment, such as serious transgressions or
misconduct that result in a loss of trust and confidence.

Procedural due process mandates that the employer must observe the twin
requirements of notice and hearing before a dismissal can be executed. This means
that the employee must be given proper notice of the grounds for dismissal and an
opportunity to be heard and defend themselves before the termination is carried out.

In this case, the court found that the employer, Manchesteve Uy, failed to comply with
both the substantive and procedural due process requirements. There was no
evidence presented to substantiate the claims of serious transgressions and
misconduct by the employee, Mario Felicilda. Additionally, Felicilda was not given
proper notice and hearing before his termination.

As a result, the court ruled that Uy's dismissal of Felicilda was illegal, and Felicilda
was entitled to back wages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. This case
highlights the importance of following due process in employment termination cases.

FACTS: Mario Felicilda was hired as a truck driver by the Gold Pillars Origin (GPO),
owned and managed by Manchesteve Uy. On December 1, 2012, Felicilda took a nap
at the work station while waiting for his truck to be loaded with cargo. The cargo was
delivered to clients on schedule. The next day, Uy's helper informed Felicilda that his
employment was terminated due to sleeping on the job. Felicilda filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal with money claims against Uy before the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: Whether or not Uy validly terminated Felicilda's employment.

HELD: The petition is granted. For a dismissal to be valid, the employer must comply
with both the substantive and procedural due process requirements. Substantive due
process requires that the dismissal be based on a just or authorized cause under the
Labor Code. Procedural due process mandates that the employer must observe the
twin requirements of notice and hearing before a dismissal can be executed.

In this case, aside from Uy's averment that Felicilda committed serious transgressions
and misconduct resulting in a loss of trust and confidence, no other evidence was
presented to substantiate these claims. The mere assertion by Uy should be deemed
as self-serving and carries no weight in law. Furthermore, Felicilda was not accorded
due process as he was only informed by Uy's helper that he was terminated from his
job. It is clear that Uy illegally dismissed Felicilda, and as such, Felicilda is entitled to
back wages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, as correctly ruled by the labor
tribunals.
12. DAVID “YIELS HOG DEALER” V. MACASIO

DOCTRINE: The doctrine applied in the case of David v. Macasio (2014) is the
Doctrine of "Engagement on Pakyaw or Task Basis." This doctrine addresses the issue
of whether an employee engaged on a task basis is entitled to certain benefits such
as overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and payment for service incentive leave.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that engagement on "pakyaw" or task basis
negates the existence of an employment relationship. Instead, the Court emphasized
that the nature of the relationship is determined by the four-fold test: (1) the selection
and engagement of the employee, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power of
dismissal, and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct.
In this case, Macasio, the complainant, satisfied the four-fold test and was considered
an employee entitled to the benefits in question. Macasio was under the control and
supervision of David, received a fixed amount of payment, and was not classified as
a "field personnel" with uncertain work hours.
Therefore, the Doctrine of "Engagement on Pakyaw or Task Basis" was applied to
determine Macasio's entitlement to overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and
payment for service incentive leave.

FACTS:

● David hired Macasio on a task basis or "pakyaw" to perform certain work.

● Macasio worked under the control and supervision of David, who set the work
day, reporting time, and manner of performing the work.
● Macasio received a fixed amount of payment regardless of the actual number
of hours worked.
ISSUES:
● Whether Macasio, as an employee engaged on a task basis, is entitled to
benefits such as overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and payment for service
incentive leave.
● Whether the engagement on "pakyaw" or task basis negates the existence of
an employment relationship.
HELD:
● The Supreme Court rejected the argument that engagement on "pakyaw" or
task basis determines the nature of the relationship.
● The Court applied the four-fold test to determine the existence of an employer-
employee relationship: (1) selection and engagement of the employee, (2) payment of
wages, (3) power of dismissal, and (4) power to control the employee's conduct.
● Macasio satisfied the four-fold test and was considered an employee entitled
to the benefits in question.
● Macasio was under the control and supervision of David, received a fixed
amount of payment, and was not classified as a "field personnel" with uncertain work
hours.
● Therefore, Macasio was entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay,
and payment for service incentive leave.
13. REGALA VS MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION

DOCTRINE: The following doctrines were applied:

1. Regular Employment Doctrine: The court applied the doctrine that recognizes
the existence of an employer-employee relationship when the work performed by an
individual is necessary and desirable to the business of the employer. This doctrine
was used to determine that Regala is a regular employee of MHC.

2. Constructive Dismissal Doctrine: The court applied the doctrine of constructive

dismissal, which refers to a situation where an employee is compelled to resign due
to the unbearable or hostile working conditions created by the employer. In this case,
the reduction of Regala's work days and the consequent diminution of his salary were
considered as constructive dismissal.

3. Validity of Employment Contracts Doctrine: The court examined the validity of

the employment contracts presented by MHC. It applied the doctrine that sets criteria
for valid fixed-term employment contracts and found that the contracts presented by
MHC did not meet those criteria.

These doctrines were crucial in determining the rights and entitlements of Allan Regala
in the case against Manila Hotel Corporation.

FACTS:
● Allan Regala worked for MHC for several years as a waiter.
● Despite his long tenure, Regala was not recognized as a regular employee by
MHC.
● Regala claimed that he was constructively dismissed when his work days were
reduced from five to two, resulting in a decrease in his salary.
● MHC argued that Regala was engaged as a fixed-term employee and that his
employment contracts were valid.

ISSUES:
● Whether Regala should be considered a regular employee of MHC.
● Whether Regala was constructively dismissed from his employment.

HELD:
● The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Regala.
● The Court determined that Regala is a regular employee of MHC.
● The nature of his work as a waiter is necessary and desirable to MHC's
business.
● Regala had been working for MHC for several years, indicating a continuous
employment relationship.
● The Service Agreements and fixed-term service contracts presented by MHC
were found to be invalid and not true fixed-term employment contracts.
● The reduction of Regala's work days and the resulting decrease in salary
amounted to constructive dismissal.
● The fact that Regala continued reporting for work did not negate the finding of
constructive dismissal.
● The Supreme Court ordered reinstatement and payment of backwages for
Regala.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Allan Regala is a regular employee of MHC
and was constructively dismissed from his employment. He is entitled to reinstatement
and full backwages.
14. CHRISDEN CABRERA DITIANGKIN ET AL. VS. LAZADA E-SERVICES
PHILIPPINES, INC.:

DOCTRINE:

The doctrine established by the court is that the riders were considered regular
employees of Lazada. This means that the court recognized the riders' employment
relationship with Lazada and affirmed their entitlement to the rights and benefits of
regular employees. The doctrine of this case can be used as a precedent in similar
cases involving the classification of workers and the determination of their employment
status.

FACTS:

● The petitioners were hired as riders by Lazada in February 2016.

● They signed a contract stating they would be paid a specific amount per day
as a service fee.
● The riders used their own motorcycles for work.
● In January 2017, the riders were removed from their usual routes and not
given any schedules.
● The riders filed a complaint against Lazada, claiming they were regular
employees.

ISSUES:
● The main issue was whether the riders were regular employees of Lazada.

HELD:
● The Court found that the riders were regular employees of Lazada.
● Lazada failed to prove that the riders were independent contractors.
● The riders were directly employed by Lazada, received salaries from them,
and could be dismissed by them.
● Lazada had control over the riders' work methods and had them submit reports.
● The riders were economically dependent on Lazada for their employment.
● Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the riders, stating they were regular
employees of Lazada.