CABRERA v.

LAZADA

gr246892
justice leonen
sept 21 2022

FACTS:
– Cabrera and others were hired as riders by Lazada
– they signed an indepedent contractor agreement — it sated that they wll be paid 1200 as service fees and that that they will be engaged for 1 year. the
riders used their own motorcycles
– the riders were told by a dispatcher rthat they have been removed from their routes and will no longer be given chedules. thery still reeported to work for
three days but eventtaully they learned that their routes were given to other riders
– the aggrieved riders filed a complaint before the NLRC against lazada for illegal dismissal, non payment of salary and other wages, and claims for moral
and exem damages

riders’ contentions: they are regular lazada employees — their means and methods of performingtrheir work are subject to lazada’s discretion

lazada’s contention: the riders are not regular employees but ICs = lazada is not a common carrier, it facilitates the sale between seller and buyer; lazada
coordinates the delivery thru an indeppendent transpo service (ancilliary activity and not included in the main line of biz)
> tehre was a surge of deliveries during christmas and they had to reorganize schedules to ensure that all riders will have a trip

LABOR ARBITER: dismissed cabrera’s complaint — they are not regular lazada employees (no er-ee rel)
>the cobntract staed that there is no ee-er relationship — the terms are explict and clear, its literal meaning should control
> the riders had control over the means and methods oif their work and used their own vehicles and devided on their delivery routes and work hours
> lazada only required that the items are delivered on time and in good condition — this isn’t tantamount to the level of control that interfered with the riders’
perfromance of their job

NLRC: affirmed the Labor Arbiter

petitioners moved for reconsideration ut was denied by the NLRC. they elevated the petition to the CA

riders contentions: they are regular employees regardless of the stipulation in theircontract —
> THEIR SERVICES ARE NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE IN THE BUSINESS OF LAZADA AND THEY HAVE ATTAINED REGULAR EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THEY
HAVE BEEN DOING THE SAME WORK FOR YEARS
> lazada controkls their method of srevice — they have to work everyday within definite work hours and have to follow company rules and regulations
> they pefromed services within the control of lazada — they kept track of te arrival/departure/unliooading of parcels, they had penalties for lost parcels and the
mode of paying the salaries was at hte discretion of lazada
> the riders also had to render 12 hours of work a day for 6 days a week so they cannot look for other jobs (they economically depend on lazada
> they do not have captital to become independent contractors — they cannot do their work without the otols provided by Lazada (cellphjones, uniforms,
product scanners)

lazada’s contentions
> petitioners’ emplyment with RGServe is immaterial when pettioners entered into contracts with lazada
> petitioners are paid contract service fees — riders have enough capital to be engaged as independent contractors
> lazada has no power to dismiss the petitioers because the riders can only be dismissed according to the contract
> lazada has no control over the riders conduct as the terms and condiutions of the contract are only there to safeguard the rights and interests of the parties.
> lazaad’s guideines — only to ensure that the items are delivered safely
> lazada contends that the riders failed to 4establish economic dependencce — riders have the discretion on how to do their work, can choose their
transporation and routes to take, when to have breaks, when to begin dlelivveries. the contract does not state the specific period of deliveries
> the route sheet is not = to control —only guides riders in pickup and deliveries
> the payment for lot parcels — only ensures that the items are delivered
> provision of phones — only for additional measure of coordinating deliveries
> riders’ timecards — only t monitopr the service rendered by riders for purposes of billing

ISSUES:
. are the riders regular employees or ICs
. did the riders satisfy the four fold test?
. are the riders econ dependent on their empoyment with lazada

The right to control extends not only over the work done but over the
means and methods by which the employee must accomplish the work. 100
The power of control does not have to be actually exercised by the employer.
It is sufficient that the employer "has a right to wield the power.

RULING: RIDERS ARE REGULAR EMPLOYEES!

A. LAZADA FAILED TO PROVEW THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE INDEPENDENT CONRACTORS

. PETITIONERS were not hired by a contractor/subcontractor — they were directly hired by Lazada — they signed an individyual contract with Lazada and
were paid directly — THERE IS NO TRILATERAL RELATIONSHIP WHERE CONTRACTOR HAS TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL CAPITAL/IMVESTMENT
. they are not ICs in a bilateral relationship - the riders’ work DO NOT CALL FOR SPECIAL SKILL OR TALENT. thjey were not hired or their unique skill/
competency

B. PETITONERS SATISFY THE FOUR-FOLD TEST AND ECON DEPENDENCY TEST

. riders are directly empoyed by lazada as shown by thier contracts
. riders receive their salaries from lazada
. lazada has the power to dismiss riders (lazada can immediately terminate te afgreement if there is a breach of the material provisions of the contract
 . lazada has control over the means and methods of doing the work

> RIDERS HAVE A ROUYTE SHEET KEEPING TRACK OF THE ARRIVAL, DEPARTUE AND UNLOADING TIME OF THE ITEMS, THEY PAY A PENALTY FOR LOST
PARCELS. THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT TRIP TICKETS AND INCIDENT REPORTS TO RESPONDENT

> THE SERVICES OF THE RIDERS ARE IMPORTANT TO LAZARA’S BUSINESS — THE DELIVERY OF ITEMS IS INTERGRATED IN LAZADA’S SERVICES — THEY HAVE
ROUTE MANAGERS TO SUPERVISE DELIVERY
> they favilitate the transaction between byter and seller AS WELL AS THE DELIVERY OF GOODS

> RIDERS INVESTED IN THEIR EQUIPMENT - THEY ARE REQUIRED TO USE THEIR OWN MOTOR VEHICVELS AND OTHER SUPPLIES IN DELIVERING ITEMS

> RIDERS HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THEIR PROFIT AND LOSS BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID A FIXED DAILY WAGE
>THEY HAD NO CONTROL OF THEIR OWN TIME AND CANNOT OFFER THEIR SERVICES TO OTHER COMPANIES\

RIDERS ARE DEPENDENT OF LAZADA FOR THEIR CONITINUED EMPLOYMENT IN THIS LINE OF BIZ
> the riders were previosly engaged by a third-party contractor to provide services for lazada
> this time, the riders were directly hired
> thus, the riders are economically dependent of lazada for their kabuhayan

RIDERS ARE NOT FIXED-TERM REGULAR EMPLOYEES

> fixed term employees are those who are on equal footing with their employer (employee has baragianing power because of a special skill)
> hindi ganito ang riders! they cannot bargain the terms of their employment
> they were not hired because of special skills
> the delivery of goods is a usual and continuuous activity in lazada’s business

PROTECTION OF THE LAW TO LABOR PRECES OVER THE NOMENCLATURE AND STIULATIONS OF THE CONTRACT
> the contract the rders signed is not an ordinary contract
>thus, tribunals cannot reject the ee-er just because the contract stipulates that such relationship does not exist

RIDERS ARE REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF LAZADA

> they are entitled to full reinstatement
> payment of full backwages including salaries, holiday pay, cash bonds
> separation pay in addition to full backwages if reinstatement is no longer possible

HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT LAZADA ACTED IN BAD FAITH/WITH FRAURD OR MALICE — THUS THERE IS NO BASIS TO AWARD MORAL AND
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
> exemp and moral damages may be awarded in cases of bad daith/malice/fraud/when act is oppresssive to labor/ contrary to morals,good customs, public
policy

THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE RESPONDENT INTENDED TO ACT OUT OF MALICE WHEN THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE THE RIDERS THEIR SCHEDULES —
failure to provide schedule were due to shortage of orders
>