ATOK BIG WEDGE COMPANY, INC.

VS
JESUS P. GISON

GR 169510
August 8, 2011
 FACTS

• Sometime in February 1992, respondent Jesus

P. Gison ( hereinafter Gison) was engaged as
part-time consultant on retainer basis by
petitioner Atok Big Wedge Company
(hereinafter ATOK).
• His job was to assist ATOK’s retained legal
counsel

• Respondent was also tasked to perform liaison

work with several government agencies.
• Gison received a retainer fee of P3000 a
month, which was delivered to him.

• He was not required to report regularly to its

office and only upon the request of the
management when his expertise were
needed.
• The parties executed a retainer agreement,
but this was misplaced and lost.

• The arrangement continued for the next

eleven years
• Sometime thereafter, respondent requested
petitioner to cause his registration with the
SSS.

• These requests were ignored because of the

fact that he was not considered as a regular
employee in the company.
• On February 21, 2003, respondent filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor
practice, underpayment of wages, non-
payment of 13th month pay, vacation pay, and
sick leave pay with the NLCR against Mario D.
Cera and Teofilo R. Asuncion, Jr..
 ISSUE

WON there exists an employer-employee

between the parties
 RULING

• the Labor Arbiter dismissed the petition for

lack of merit.
• Respondent appealed the decision to the
NLRC, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s
decision.
• Respondent then appealed to the Court of
Appeals questioning the decision and
resolution of the NLRC.
• The CA annulled and set side the decision of
the NLRC and ordered the reinstatement of
the respondent and backwages.
• The Supreme Court held that there was no
employer-employee relationship between the
parties.
• To ascertain the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, they must adhere to
the four-fold test
• Selection and engagement of the employees
• The payment of wages
• The power of dismissal
• The power to control the employees’ conduct
or the “CONTROL test”
• According to the SC, the element of control is
lacking in the case at bar.
• Under the control test, the employer reserves
the right to control not only the end achieved,
but also the manner and means to be used in
reaching that end.
• Verily, the absence of the element of control
on the part of the petitioner engenders a
conclusion that he is not an employee of the
petitioner.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision

and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87846,
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolutions dated July 30,
2004 and September 30, 2004 of the National Labor Relations Commission
are REINSTATED.