WAGES PAID PER TRIP CANNOT ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE THIS IS MERE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE PROPER COMPENSATION

Wages paid on various methods cannot establish existence of employer-employee relationship because it is a mere method of payment. The SC held in the case of Expedition Construction Corporation, et al. vs. Africa, et al., (G.R. No. 228671, December 14, 2017), as follows:

Jurisprudence adhered to the four-fold test in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, to wit:

(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, or the so-called ‘control test”‘.

In ruling that complainants were employees of Expedition Construction, it was found that all the elements of employer-employee to be present.

As shown in the records, Expedition hired complainants as dump truck drivers and paid them the amount of P-620.00 per trip. Expedition wielded the power to dismiss complainants based on Expedition’s admission that when the dispatch of drivers became irregular, it tried to accommodate them by giving trips when the need arose.

The control test was likewise established because Expedition determined how, where, and when complainants would perform their tasks. Expedition, however, proffers that the factual findings had no legal basis.

It claims that complainants were never hired but were merely engaged as drivers; that they worked on their own and were not subjected to its control and supervision; that they were compensated based on output or number of trips made in a day; that they selected their own garbage collectors, chose their own route and determined the manner by which they would collect the garbage; and, that they performed their work at their own pleasure without fear of being sanctioned if they chose not to report for work.

Learn more about forms of employment and how to craft the proper employment contracts from the book Human Resource Forms, Notices and Contracts Volume 1 by Atty. Elvin B. Villanueva

The Court found Expedition’s position untenable. First, as clearly admitted, complainants were engaged/hired by Expedition as garbage truck drivers. Second, it is undeniable that complainants received compensation from Expedition for the services that they rendered to the latter. The fact that complainants were paid on a per trip basis is irrelevant in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship because this was merely the method of computing the proper compensation due to complainants. Third, Expedition’s power to dismiss was apparent when work was withheld from complainants as a result of the termination of the contracts with Quezon City and Caloocan City.

Finally, Expedition has the power of control over complainants in the performance of their work. It was held that the power of control refers merely to the existence of the power and not to the actual exercise thereof.

As aptly observed by the CA, the agreements for the collection of garbage were between Expedition and the various and complainants needed the instruction and supervision of Expedition to effectively perform their work in accordance with the stipulations of the agreements.

Moreover, the trucks driven by complainants were owned by Expedition. There was an express instruction that these trucks were to be exclusively used to collect and transport garbage. Complainants were mandated to return the trucks to the premises of after the collection of garbage.

Expedition determined the clients to be served, the location where the garbage is to be collected and when it is to be collected. Indeed, Expedition determined how, where, and when complainants would perform their tasks. Complainants were neither independent contractors nor project employees.

There was no showing that complainants have substantial capital or investment and that they were performing activities which were not directly related to be qualified as independent contractors. There was likewise no written contract that can prove that complainants were project employees and that the duration and scope of such employment were specified at the time were engaged.

Therefore, complainants should be accorded the presumption of regular employment pursuant to Article 230 of the Labor Code which provides that employees who have rendered at least one year of service whether such service is continuous or broken shall be considered as regular employees with respect to the activity in which they employed and their employment shall continue while such activity exists.

Furthermore, the fact that complainants were performing activities which were directlyrelated to the business of Expedition confirms the conclusion that complainants were indeed regular employees. Having gained regular status complainants were entitled to security of tenure and could only be dismissed for just or authorized cause after they had been accorded due process.