Scribd
Upload
99 views4 pages

Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc., Petitioner, JESUS P. GISON, Respondent. G.R. No. 169510 August 8, 2011 Facts

The Supreme Court ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between Jesus Gison and Atok Big Wedge Company. While Gison performed services for Atok for 11 years, receiving a monthly retainer fee, Atok did not exercise control over the manner and means by which Gison accomplished his tasks. As the control test was not met, the lower courts correctly found Gison was not a regular employee. The Court also rejected Gison's argument that the long-term nature of his work meant he became a regular employee over time, stating an agreement can provide for services without an employment relationship.

Uploaded by

Kastin Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
99 views4 pages

Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc., Petitioner, JESUS P. GISON, Respondent. G.R. No. 169510 August 8, 2011 Facts

The Supreme Court ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between Jesus Gison and Atok Big Wedge Company. While Gison performed services for Atok for 11 years, receiving a monthly retainer fee, Atok did not exercise control over the manner and means by which Gison accomplished his tasks. As the control test was not met, the lower courts correctly found Gison was not a regular employee. The Court also rejected Gison's argument that the long-term nature of his work meant he became a regular employee over time, stating an agreement can provide for services without an employment relationship.

Uploaded by

Kastin Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

ATOK BIG WEDGE COMPANY, INC.

, Petitioner,
vs.
JESUS P. GISON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 169510               August 8, 2011

FACTS:

Respondent Jesus P. Gison hired as part-time consultant on retainer basis by Atok Big
Wedge Company Inc. The parties executed a retainer agreement.
 Retained legal counsel with matters pertaining to the prosecution of cases
against illegal surface occupants.
 Performed liaison worth with government agencies
 Received Retainer fee of Php3,000/month delivered to him at his
residence or in a local restaurant
 Not required to report office on a regular basis
The arrangement continued for eleven years
When Gison turned 56 years old he requested the company to cause his registration
with SSS. Atok ignored said request.
As a result, Gison filed a complaint with the SSS.
Atok terminated Gison’s services after he filed the complaint with SSS.

LABOR ARBITER’S DECISION


LA ruled in favor of Atok finding no employer-employee relationship between
Gison and Atok.
Gison appealed to NLRC.
NLRC’s DECISION
Affirmed LA’s decision.
Gison filed Motion for Reconsideration but was denied
Gison filed a petition for review before CA
CA’s DECISION

 LA and NLRC overlooked Article 280 of the Labor Code or the provision
which distinguishes between two kinds of employees, i.e., regular and
casual employees. Applying Art. 280, Gison is deemed a regular
employee after the lapse of one year from his employment.
 Since Gison is performing services for the Atok for eleven years,Gison is
entitled to the rights and privileges of a regular employee.

 Although there was an agreement between the parties that Gison's


employment would only be temporary, it clearly appears that Atok
disregarded the same by repeatedly giving petitioner several tasks to
perform

 Although respondent may have waived his right to attain a regular status
of employment when he agreed to perform these tasks on a temporary
employment status, still, it was the law that recognized and considered
him a regular employee after his first year of rendering service to
petitioner. As such, the waiver was ineffective.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT AN EMPLOYER <3 EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP


EXISTS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.

SC’s RULING

CA VERY VERY WRONG (ERRED) IN APPLYING ART. 280 OF THE LABOR CODE
Article 280 of the LC is only a yardstick for determining the existence of an
employment relationship because it merely distinguishes between two kinds of
employees, i.e., regular employees and casual employees, for purposes of determining
the right of an employee to certain benefits, to join or form a union, or to security of
tenure; it does not apply where the existence of an employment relationship is in
dispute.

EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYEE <3 EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP IS ULTIMATELY A


QUESTION OF FACT
The findings thereon by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC shall be accorded
not only respect but even finality when supported by substantial evidence
Being a question of fact, the determination whether such a relationship
exists between petitioner and respondent was well within the province of the
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC

FOUR FOLD TEST ON THE EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER


RELATIONSHIP <3
(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”

CONTROL TEST – Most crucial determinative indicator on the presence or


absence of E <3 E Relationship
EE relationship exists where employer reserves the right to control not only the
end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE ABSENT IN THE CASE

 Gison was not required to report everyday during regular office hours of Atok.

 monthly retainer fees were paid to him either at his residence or a local
restaurant.

 Atok did not prescribe the manner in which Gison would accomplish any of the
tasks in which his expertise as a liaison officer was needed;

 Respondent was left alone and given the freedom to accomplish the tasks using
his own means and method.

 Respondent was assigned tasks to perform, but petitioner did not control the
manner and methods by which respondent performed these tasks

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.
GISON’s ARGUMENT

He became a regular employee of the petitioner based on his contention that the
"temporary" aspect of his job and its "limited" nature could not have lasted for eleven
years unless some time during that period, he became a regular employee of the
petitioner by continually performing services for the company.

SC’S RESPONSE ON GISON’S CONTENTION


Any agreement may provide that one party shall render services for and in behalf
of another, no matter how necessary for the latter's business, even without being hired
as an employee.

Respondent's length of service and petitioner's repeated act of


assigning respondent some tasks to be performed did not result to
respondent's entitlement to the rights and privileges of a regular
employee.

You might also like